Why?

[MonSno_LeeDra]

After reading and re-reading many of the threads and such here and on other sites and boards I can't help but ask "Why do so many spout off that they read in this book or that book and this thing is used this way."

I find Ted Andrews recited as a begin all end all source for what an animal or
creature represents. Yet the watching of said creature often reveals something far different than what Ted wrote. Of course that is if Ted even saw said creature. I highly doubt he saw a Dinosaur or even a minute fraction of these animals he has defined. Yet blindly, his belief is sited as source material.

List after list of this item is used for this. Yet truthy who decided it was used for that? It seems far too often it appears to be Ted Andrews or Scott Cunningham is the unspoken lord of what is and what is not.

On another thread dealing with seashells a whole list of what it means and what it’s used for. Yet go to the area it's from and find just how often that list is wrong.

Now I understand a starting point is needed as a place to begin. A point to place something for identification, a way to register it upon your mental dictionary. Yet I also know it’s far harder to unlearn an incorrect thing or concept than to take the time and learn it correctly the first time.

How many times does a material get defined yet when you hold it in your hands it feels wrong from the definition? Yet more often than not the feeling is pushed aside in favor of the author's defined definition.

I find it strange that a collective group can so strongly defend what a god / goddess means yet take for granted what a person wrote as to what an animal or mineral or vegetable is supposed to mean and represent.

For instance take salt. What is salt truly used for? We use it to purify yet in its actual usage its not purifying its pretty much food life extension. We use to increase the shelf life of foods; we use it to change the taste of things to make it more palatable. In some regards it’s a healing agent. It removes water yet does not remove impurities in anything.

Yet read any list and its says use sea salt to purify. Purify, nope sorry all it does is make water into brine based upon the amount put in.

So as a collective whole I ask "WHY?"

[Kaija]

I can't answer for everyone, because I am normally outside the collective whole.. one reason I very rarely answer specific path related questions.. I agree with you about the often sited authors.. My correspondances are my own.. I only use what feels right, when it feels right.. I don't judge other's views on what any given symbol or element might mean.. I know what works for me..

As for salt however.. if you put a dead body in salt, it purifies. It mumifies.. moisture allows the growth of deadly flesh eating bacteria.. so considering that for many many years families were in charge of not only trying to keep the meat from spoiling.. (which could have KILLED them) they also had to deal with the death of loved ones.. they learned that using salt helped keep them from getting sick.. once again from bacteria.. It is in it's own way a purifier.. not in the sense that it magickly takes pollution out of the air, or pestisides out of your food.. but it keeps deadly bacteria away.. So, how you see salt, depends on what context you use..

[aluokaloo]

After reading and re-reading many of the threads and such here and on other sites and boards I can't help but ask "Why do so many spout off that they read in this book or that book and this thing is used this way."

I find Ted Andrews recited as a begin all end all source for what an animal or
creature represents. Yet the watching of said creature often reveals something far different than what Ted wrote. Of course that is if Ted even saw said creature. I highly doubt he saw a Dinosaur or even a minute fraction of these animals he has defined. Yet blindly, his belief is sited as source material.

List after list of this item is used for this. Yet truthy who decided it was used for that? It seems far too often it appears to be Ted Andrews or Scott Cunningham is the unspoken lord of what is and what is not.

On another thread dealing with seashells a whole list of what it means and what it’s used for. Yet go to the area it's from and find just how often that list is wrong.

Now I understand a starting point is needed as a place to begin. A point to place something for identification, a way to register it upon your mental dictionary. Yet I also know it’s far harder to unlearn an incorrect thing or concept than to take the time and learn it correctly the first time.

How many times does a material get defined yet when you hold it in your hands it feels wrong from the definition? Yet more often than not the feeling is pushed aside in favor of the author's defined definition.

I find it strange that a collective group can so strongly defend what a god / goddess means yet take for granted what a person wrote as to what an animal or mineral or vegetable is supposed to mean and represent.

For instance take salt. What is salt truly used for? We use it to purify yet in its actual usage its not purifying its pretty much food life extension. We use to increase the shelf life of foods; we use it to change the taste of things to make it more palatable. In some regards it’s a healing agent. It removes water yet does not remove impurities in anything.

Yet read any list and its says use sea salt to purify. Purify, nope sorry all it does is make water into brine based upon the amount put in.

So as a collective whole I ask "WHY?"




because some most likely read them and agreed with them, look Leedra, if you find a definition or symbolism to mean something entirely different to you then that's perfectly fine. As a personal example if me and somebody on this site both had a dream about spiders last night, well for me the spiders would represent my fears because I'm terrified of the little buggers, but forn the other person spiders would represent the sacred divine, and she/he would consider it a good omen. There are as many symbols as stars in the sky and each person/culture/faith/collective conscientiousness sees them all in different ways.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

aluokaloo,

If we were talking about dream symbology and identification then I would agree with you 100 percent. Only the individual having the dream can truly understand and analyze the dream for the symbology would be based upon thier inner connection to said symbology.

Yet in this I'm not refering to dream symbology. I refering to the standard cookbook of Animal totem meanings, gem usuage, mineral correspondence, etc.

If someone ask's me about Herron I can speak based upon observation and research. I see from 3 - 9 everyday. I've watched them for hours along the river banks and in the river as they hunt. I can speak on bear as I see them quite frequently as well.

Not based upon what Ted Andrews has put forth as the meaning. Is observation perfect? Not by a long shot for thier are facet we can not know unless we dedicate ourselves to their study 24 - 7.

Yet in many ways the regurgation of Ted Andrews or Scott Cunningham on many levels is sort of like saying "I watched Disney's movie DUMBO so now I know all about elephant magic.

Is thier valuable material in those books? Yes, to the extent that one wishes to know what those items mean and represent to the authors. Is it a good reference source? I guess one might think so if they go beyond what is written thier as the final word.

I once spoke to a Native American about the thoughs on a Bison (Buffalo). The response was bascially anyone can make up anything they like. Unfortunately Ted didn't know anything about Bison (Ta Tanka).


Kaija,

I somewhat agree with regards to death, purification and salt. Yet most early culture's and mythologies atribute salt to the gods / goddess for its preservation ability. Sort of the hand of the god / goddess had to reach in to stop the decay and keep the food usuable for long periods of time.

It was also precious to the gods / goddess so was often given as tribute.

Of course salt water was also connected to many gods / goddess. Tiamat one negative persona for salt water connection.

I will admit I do find ceremonies and ritual for purification with reference to salt. Unfortuantely the ones I find come from Christianity and deal with man being the salt of the earth and such.

[aluokaloo]

ahh but I wasn't talking about just dream symbology, I was merely trying to site an example, sorry if you took it that way. ;) Think about it though truly a tiger for you and me would be a creature of power and majesty, while for people who live along-side, many of them are terrified because to them it is a realm day-to-day threat iof getting badly mauled or killed by these powerful predators, we might see think that seals are graceful but to fishermen they are competition and a nuisance.. All I'm saying is that if a symbology of an animal/plant/gem/ etc. doesn't seem to feel right with you, then find your own.

[Juniper138]

The mundane and the magickal do not always match up.

However I do not agree with blindly following what is written in a book, people should try things out for themselves.

Concerning the salt issue, go for a swim in the ocean, and let yourself dry, then rub your skin. Aside from gritty sand, my skin always feels very clean and purified, and so does the rest of me, in a spiritual sense. Also salted water is great for cleaning all sots of things. Before the invention of detergents, people used vinegar or salt and water to wash all manner of things in and around the home. Its great for cleansing wounds too.

[skilly-nilly]

List after list of this item is used for this. Yet truthy who decided it was used for that? It seems far too often it appears to be Ted Andrews or Scott Cunningham is the unspoken lord of what is and what is not.

I'm not a big fan of Scott Cunningham but I mildly like Ted Andrews---and that explains the 'why' of it;
when I read something I consider it to be that author's opinion and I can agree or disagree with it freely. If they back up their opinion with logic, reference to Nature , or some relied-upon text then I give their opinion more credence; that is if they explain 'why' that's their opinion then I'm more interested.
So if I'm interested in some animal I might ask myself 'what 's Ted Andrews' opinion' as well as 'what's Miranda Gray's opinion'
(http://www.amazon.com/Beasts-Albion-Ancient-British-Self-Development/dp/1855383187/ref=sr_1_1/002-7581185-5471258?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1186967527&sr=1-1)
as well as 'what's the opinion of the indigenous people where that animal is' and 'what do my naturalist references have to say' as well as 'what have I observed'.

I don't think there's anything inherently 'wrong' with finding out what other opinions are about stones, animals, or anything but it's not inherently the 'troof' either.

[maelstrom]

One of the things that I love most about the Craft is the amazing diversity of it's practitioners. Correspondences vary from tradition to tradition, solitary witch to solitary witch. When a witch puts his or her thoughts to paper, I would hope that it is not in any attempt to set up dogma, but simply to share their experiences with others, and to give them a place to start.

It is up to each witch to speak to their stones or animal guides, to interpret their dreams and listen to their inner voices to help guide them on their path.

As an aside, I have never seen Tiamat as a "negative" power. Mother Darkness, the first primal point, and a powerful creator. But I could be wrong.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

Not trying to start an argument or anything here but I am truly curious about this.

To me an animal guide / spirit is a source of inspiriation and guidance. Only through knowing thier weakness and strengths can I truly understand thier place and powers. It is thier wisdom and cunning and guile that teaches me many of the things about them.

For instance aluokaloo spoke of Tiger and villagers. Now this is no different than Grizzly Bear and Mountian Lion were to the indians and early trappers. Both were representations of great strength and brute power. They were to be feared on many levels yet the very facet of facing that fear was great power to the warrior who did so.

To face and survive was to be accepted by that spirit animal. Yet the very things that made them fearful were also the traits they taught to man. Cunning, speed, persistance, intimidation, etc.

Yet the weaker animals were also teachers Rabbit was seen as a coward and to make someone eat the heart of a rabbit was believed to inprint those charactericts upon the eater. The same was true of bear or lion, eat the heart or part of it and gain its power.

As a sign of your defeat of them you carried bear claws, lion claws, mane, etc.

In journey or magical work it is the image of a animal that indicates to us (me) what facet or energy is being used or called upon. It describes the inner strength of spirit we must posses to undertake a journey with them. It teaches me to move quietly as a mouse or gracefuly like a gazelle. It tellls me what strengths I must tap into the complete the journey or quest.

It tells me if I must use the strength and ferosity of bear or lion or if I must appraoch the situation with the stealth of cat. It tells me what sphere's of influence I will encounter. Herron tells me I will face the elemets of water, land and air for it is a native of all three. Eagle tells me I must soar above it all and the element of air will be my main concern.

So from my perspective I trully do not understand how you can use a spirit guide / totem animal or spirit animal if you do not know its powers and abilities. To make up things as you believe and atribute them to what ever animal seem to fail in teaching that animals lessons.

Its sort of like saying I'm studying White Buffalo Calf Woman Comes Danicng but i'll use my own definations of what Bison really is not what the Indians believed.

With regards to magical if one creates in the astral and intent pushes it into the realiltiy then how can the realility of an animal not be its magical ability. All magical manipulations begins on the mental scape and is carried into the physical world.

[skilly-nilly]

Yet the weaker animals were also teachers Rabbit was seen as a coward and to make someone eat the heart of a rabbit was believed to inprint those charactericts upon the eater. The same was true of bear or lion, eat the heart or part of it and gain its power.

RabbitSpirit is one of my teachers and she teaches me to defend my home and to save my struggle for when escape is possible. I think it shows an incomplete understanding of the teachings of Rabbit to dismiss her as cowardly.

So when you say, "Rabbit was seen as a coward" I see that as a statement of opinion (yours?? someone else's you didn't credit??) and I feel free to disagree. I see rabbits very often since I feed them and my opinion of RabbitSpirit's teachings is drawn from Nature. I observe rabbits defending their homes and waiting to try to escape until escape is possible, I don't see them being "cowards".





So from my perspective I trully do not understand how you can use a spirit guide / totem animal or spirit animal if you do not know its powers and abilities. To make up things as you believe and atribute them to what ever animal seem to fail in teaching that animals lessons.

Its sort of like saying I'm studying White Buffalo Calf Woman Comes Danicng but i'll use my own definations of what Bison really is not what the Indians believed.


Why do Indians (I assume you mean specifically Plains Indians--different tribes believed vastly different things) have the tap-in to knowledge? Bisons lived where they do well before there were Indians there and (I believe) had Spirit-Nature then as well as when the Indians came as well as now.

I lived down the road from a buffalo farm and saw them almost every day, and I also saw buffalo in the wild (although not too close) at Yellowstone Park many times.
Although it doesn't show up too well with the background colour, it's in my sig
'I ride the buffalo of factual exactness'

Nothing whatsoever to do with Indians, everything to do with buffalo. IMO, BuffaloSpirit teaches to go with Right Action without stopping for anything.

It's all opinion--Heron teaches me to wait with perfect patience until the right moment and (evolutionarily) to not change once you find a good niche.

[Jayms_fallen_angel]

For instance take salt. What is salt truly used for? We use it to purify yet in its actual usage its not purifying its pretty much food life extension. We use to increase the shelf life of foods; we use it to change the taste of things to make it more palatable. In some regards it’s a healing agent. It removes water yet does not remove impurities in anything.

Yet read any list and its says use sea salt to purify. Purify, nope sorry all it does is make water into brine based upon the amount put in.

So as a collective whole I ask "WHY?"


Ummm if you use salt in a wound it cleans it...hence purification.
Personally I go with the ancient belief of fire as being a true cleanser but still use salt. I think the only true cleanser in this world is a very strong acid....salt turns water into brine, fire leaves ash, wind just moves things and water dilutes...but medically speaking if you had fire salt, air and water salt is the best thing to clean your wound with.

[Nitefalle]

How many times does a material get defined yet when you hold it in your hands it feels wrong from the definition? Yet more often than not the feeling is pushed aside in favor of the author's defined definition.




[QUOTE=MonSno_LeeDra;3213410]
So from my perspective I trully do not understand how you can use a spirit guide / totem animal or spirit animal if you do not know its powers and abilities. To make up things as you believe and atribute them to what ever animal seem to fail in teaching that animals lessons.
Its sort of like saying I'm studying White Buffalo Calf Woman Comes Danicng but i'll use my own definations of what Bison really is not what the Indians believed.
[QUOTE]

I am confused....between your first post and your third, you seem to be contradicting yourself. In the first post, the bit I've quoted seems to be saying that people need to rely on their own senses and insights and intuitions to define correspondences for themselves. However, in your third post, you seem to be saying that's wrong and we should only rely on a particular culture to define something for us.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

skilly-nilly Wrote:



RabbitSpirit is one of my teachers and she teaches me to defend my home and to save my struggle for when escape is possible. I think it shows an incomplete understanding of the teachings of Rabbit to dismiss her as cowardly.



Perhaps I am wrong in my classification of rabbit. However, you must also look to my perspective. When I look at rabbit I see a creature that runs when danger approaches. I see a creature that runs when something comes near it. I see a creature that runs when anything happens about it. I have only seen them fight one time and that was against its own kind.

Now I do acknowledge that rabbit is fleet and its jumps, turns, twists and such in the running make it one hard creature to capture. Even make it possible that the pursurer would give up the chase. No one can deny its not prolific in the breeding facet.

Yet from the military back ground and the influence of many warrior nations those very traits of running away are signs of cowardice. To be preceived as a coward was the worse thing one could do. Rabbit is used as a runner and fleer within the concepts of the Samuari, Most Indian Nations, Knightly orders of Europe, and especially military orders.

So I freely admit my military past has colored my persceptions of rabbit.



So when you say, "Rabbit was seen as a coward" I see that as a statement of opinion (yours


Some my opinion some based upon statements made by historical figures. Granted most of my sources are again military or warrior driven so that coloration has probally been slanted.




Why do Indians (I assume you mean specifically Plains Indians--different tribes believed vastly different things) have the tap-in to knowledge? Bisons lived where they do well before there were Indians there and (I believe) had Spirit-Nature then as well as when the Indians came as well as now.



That would be a correct assumption. Granted the Bison were here long before the modern nations of man on North American Soil. Yet the only people that can truly speak of the bison as both food source, mystical being and inspiration are the Plains Indians.

The Bison was gone from the eastern Coast by the mid 1700's. As a global creature no where was it more pronounced than the american plains.

Personally if I must make a assesment of a creature based on literature and fables and legends I'd rather base it upon the people whose lives where connected to it on multiple levels.

Will that assesment be totaly correct. No way for I am not a living member of that unit so can not truthfuly know its impact on thier lives and culture. Yet that assesment is more corect based upon those items than I think upon Ted Andrews.


I do like discussions like this though for it always makes one think upon venues they may have overlooked or ommited.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

Nitefalle Wrote:



I am confused....between your first post and your third, you seem to be contradicting yourself. In the first post, the bit I've quoted seems to be saying that people need to rely on their own senses and insights and intuitions to define correspondences for themselves. However, in your third post, you seem to be saying that's wrong and we should only rely on a particular culture to define something for us.


Sorry for the confusion. Let me try to clear it up.,

In my initial post I asked about basing your assumptions and beliefs about a creature off the book by Ted Andrews called "Animal Speak".

My position is that to trully understand a creature one must have physical contact and interaction with the creature. That interaction maybe observation, documentaries, etc. Bascially things that are going to show the creature as it actually is in the wild. If we can see it with our own eyes in its natureal place and environment then I believe that is the best class.

If one must use a book of opinions and beliefs then I think one should use books, fables, stories written by the culture that is most closley associated with it. I would not go to a book written in Japan, based upon japanesse culture to learn about Anaconda's. I would find books written by South American peoples and thier mythologies and fables.

Hope this clears it up for you.

[skilly-nilly]

Perhaps I am wrong in my classification of rabbit. However, you must also look to my perspective. Yet from the military back ground and the influence of many warrior nations those very traits of running away are signs of cowardice. To be preceived as a coward was the worse thing one could do. So I freely admit my military past has colored my persceptions of rabbit.

See, that's where personal experiences colour opinion (in an interesting way as well). I am a biologist, so I expect prey animals to act like prey animals and run away. I think that to expect rabbits to act like humans (aka anthropomorphism) is to ignore rabbit-ness. Rabbits only stand and fight to defend their babies (which is why I call her 'she') because that's what's most important. Personal bravery isn't important to rabbits, and why should it be? Surviving is what's important to rabbits, and I think that one of the main lessons RabbitSpirit teaches is about not giving up.

Rabbits also use a survival technique of going limp and not resisting when caught, waiting for a moment of inattention or loosening of the hold and then bursting away. This is a lesson that has many human applications.

You might like to read the book or watch the movie of 'Watership Down' for an amazing presentation of what rabbits are like. They're European Rabbits, and so live in big groups in a warren (unlike N.A. Cottontails). Some of them are soldiers and they call their God/Honoured Ancestor 'The Prince with a Thousand Enemies'.




Granted the Bison were here long before the modern nations of man on North American Soil. Yet the only people that can truly speak of the bison as both food source, mystical being and inspiration are the Plains Indians. Personally if I must make a assesment of a creature based on literature and fables and legends I'd rather base it upon the people whose lives where connected to it on multiple levels.

Again I'm a biologist, and I see Bison as prey animals. Big, dangerous ones but still hunted rather than hunting. I would agree that Plains Indians have a well-informed opinion about the meaning of buffalo and also that they included BisonSpirit in their extended Pantheon. But that still doesn't make the Plains Indians the source of 'The Wisdom of the Buffalo'----it's the buffalo themselves and BisonSpirit that truely know themselves the best.

:cheers: It's always interesting to hear a different but well-thought-out opinion. Thanks.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

skilly-nilly wrote:



Rabbits also use a survival technique of going limp and not resisting when caught, waiting for a moment of inattention or loosening of the hold and then bursting away. This is a lesson that has many human applications.



I find Ground Hog or Hedge Hog also use this technique. Yet I wonder if it's not something akin to all rodent level prey. Thank you for reminding me of that. It's a lesson I seldom see so have a habit of forgetting.



You might like to read the book or watch the movie of 'Watership Down' for an amazing presentation of what rabbits are like. They're European Rabbits, and so live in big groups in a warren (unlike N.A. Cottontails). Some of them are soldiers and they call their God/Honoured Ancestor 'The Prince with a Thousand Enemies'.



I haven't though of that book or movie in years. Yet I do remember just how bloody it could get so I guess Rabbit can be warrior like when needed. It also reminded me that Hare and rabbit are the same family group. Strange how easily that was missed in the mental correlation.

Definately reminds me that correlation is often driven by world view and experience so while observation is good I guess we do need a counter to balance the perspective.

I find it interesting in the series of this thread that the concepts of "Prey" and "Hunter" really didn't enter my mind until you mentioned them. Yet that is one of the balance points so desperately needed to understand part of the symbolism.



I think that to expect rabbits to act like humans (aka anthropomorphism) is to ignore rabbit-ness


This is a concept that has intrigued me for many years. The anamorphic changing of animals into human presentaitons with human characterists. I have wondered if it is an attempt to understand the human qualities we see within the animal or transpose the animal into something more human that we may try to understand the base level animalistic qualities within ourselves?

From a perspective of humanity I guess that is what we do far to often at the expense of the true identy of the animals we see.

[wyrdmage]

I didn't read every post so bear with me if this repeats itself but, it seems to me that those who espouse a particular writer as being unconditionally true or appear dogmatic about an author are what we call "fluffies" or followers and not true practitioners of magic. Of course one must question one's source of wisdom- how else are we too learn?

[ModernKnight]

So as a collective whole I ask "WHY?"


Lack of personal, first-hand experience combined with an immature ability to "read the energies" for one's self, combined with a desire to obtain wisdom NOW instead of let it develop over time.

Quite frankly, it's easier to believe a book that says salt = purifying than it is to really study the essence of salt.

[RainInanna]

Because aquisition of data and memorization (like in school) is more valued then first-hand experience over time? Just as studying is often valued over spending time in nature.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

RainInanna,

You stated an interesting fact. But is it a truthful one if tested?

The books and knowledge that with stand the tests of time are those that are backed by scientific observation or first hand observation. The legends we fall back upon are releated accounts of believed first hand observations.

Those things that stand the test remain those that fail are discarded. So does it not somewhat make it a false statement to say



aquisition of data and memorization (like in school) is more valued then first-hand experience over time


The efforts to disprove or change are also based upon first hand observation and / or scientific testing. First hand observation and testing is what pushes the few to strive forward while the majority simply ape the knowledge developed by the few.

I do wonder if its not truer to say the few who quest and explore are more valued than the majority that simply ape anothers response.

So if one is to look at true self realization then is it not better to test and struggle against the established norms vice being part of the heard and just accepting what another determined and tested to be the truth?

So what ModernKnight said :



Quite frankly, it's easier to believe a book that says salt = purifying than it is to really study the essence of salt.


If one just accepted the concept of what is written as truth then would we be as advanced as we are now?

I once read that Witchcraft and to some extent Wicca is refered to as the Way of the Wise. If that is true then how wise are they if they don't question and try to learn the full truth vice just rout learning what someone else said is the truth.

I can still receite the Presidents of the US in order of election or still receit the multiplucation tables I learnt in grade school yet all that truyly means is I can ape what another discovered and have no true perspective or knowledge of it.

That would imply to my perspective that one or two are truly wise the rest are just apeing.

[ModernKnight]

If one just accepted the concept of what is written as truth then would we be as advanced as we are now?
...

That would imply to my perspective that one or two are truly wise the rest are just apeing.

You're exactly right. In any field, there are very few leaders. Most follow the beaten trails because it's easier. Exploring new territory is hard work.