A person holding a Talking Stick is supposed to speak the truth, but not only that. He is also supposed to look within a little bit more to be able to discover what is hidden, what is really true. The real ”truth behind” is often not what we believe (before we have taken a closer look at it).
If you have a lot of lamps turned on in your home you might believe that it is dark outside, but if you dare to step out into the darkness you might discover that it is not at all dark, at least not when the moon and the stars are visible.
The astrologer Kapiel Raaj describes his impression of ascension (spiritual development) as the ability of being more and more awake, more and more able to see the truth. Not only in Jesus or Buddha, but everywhere. To see more and more of the essence of, the truth of anything that you look at. It is not the same as seeing ghosts, ancestors and angels walking around, which any dog or cat can do.
Acceleration of Ascension energy
2015-2022 & Nakshatra news
The Talking Stick, or at least the method of having such Talking Circles, are getting more popular now among us, white people, to solve communication problems. To have a look at ”the truth behind” becomes bigger in whole society (compared to 50 years ago) and there are alternative news channels that can be said to walk the same path as is suggested by the Talking Stick method for single individuals.
Some of the last sentences that I wrote in the previous chapter here ”Is shamanism a religion?” are these: "Today our psychopaths operate through the political systems, Internet, Medical Companies, Food Companies, economy, war industri...... and we believe them and follow them.... but they have started to have problems with facebook and YouTube. I suppose they are busy inventing new algorithms that will fix the problem."
They seem to be quite busy with creating s new system to ban free speech. The basic idea is not too difficult to understand. You just have to tell the people that we do have ”free speech”, but only as long as we are nice to each other. That´s OK. But who is ”each other”? And what is ”nice”? When should we tell the truth and when should we not? And what is truth? Who decides what is true and what is not true? Answer: The one who is the strongest, the one who has the power! The one who owns the press. Or any newspaper. Of course, because he is the one who is responsible for everything that is written in his medium. That is not strange.
So if one medium covers several billion people, the owner of this medium platform is also having the power of controlling the minds of all those billions. It is also about money, because the big companies are making ads in almost all big media and in this way supporting them with money, without which they could not exist.
So the alternative reporters like Tim Pool are being placed on a ”ban list” to tell the companies that they do better not place any ads here. So they get no money. They can no longer make a living from their job. So they have to get another job. In reality it is not so that they are telling lies – it is just that they are uncomfortable for the big companies and the medium owner, who now has to clean up.
It means that the big companies are supporting all ”free speech” that they like (that supports them!) but not any other ”free speech”. Free speech can be dangerous for them as it can reveal the hidden dark agenda that they are baking into our breads.
What to do about that?
Is this the beginning of an alternative News Machine, supported by alternative companies?
K: börjar du inte bli ofokuserad? (Aren´t you losing your focus now?)
Viveca: Jo! (Yes!)
K: Bra att du ser det själv (Good that you can see it yourself!)
K: har du ingen blogg där de där religiösa funderingar hör hemma? (Don´t you have any blog where those religious thoughts belong?
Viveca: Jodå (yes)
That was a comment that I got after having written the text Our New Heaven.
How interesting!
Now I just have to think more about that! I start where I am and then I will see where I end up.
OK I was writing about religion and not specifically about the Talking Stick. But as the Talking Stick is a tool for introspection and for telling others what is really going on in the mind and for understanding what the emotions are based upon and how they have been created, how they get triggered and how they can be changed, the Talking Stick can not be separated from those other disciplines and theories that are focusing on the same thing and they are many. There are innumerable approaches to the study of the psyche and we can take looks into many of them and get the same answers, but they are presented with different words and names. Some disciplines are called religions, some are just called methods and some are called shamanism and we have psychological schools, esoteric orders and so on and on and on..... they were started by introspective people who were interested in looking closer at our inner reality, formulate theories from the discoveries and teaching them to others. But a method can be taken over by people with other interests.
The Talking Stick has appeared to us in the form that is invented by the Red Indians (with pearls, hide and feathers and so) and their culture is accepted by us, much because we think that it is ”not a religion”. Some call it shamanism and they see shamanism as an opposite to, or at least a good escape from ”religion”.
The Sioux Indians get really angry when we (outsiders) claim that they ”have shamans”. They answer: ”We have Medicine Men and not shamans! A shaman is something else!”
So... how is it?
Is shamanism a religion or is it the opposite to religions and thus being able to save humanity from all those religions? According to what i read here shamanism is a religion.
Tengrism:
Tengrism is a Central Asian religion characterized by shamanism, animism, totemism, poly- and monotheism and ancestor worship. It was the prevailing religion of the Turks, Mongols, Hungarians, Xiongnu and Huns and the religion of the five ancient Turkic states: Göktürk Khaganate, Western Turkic Khaganate, Great Bulgaria, Bulgarian Empire and Eastern Tourkia (Khazaria).
"Unlike the shamanism of former times, Tengrism is a monotheistic form of religion with a cosmology that is suitable for the modern world. It is firmly based on trendy ‘green’ or environmental concerns and believes that humanity should live in harmony with the natural world."
It is a religion, "but without dogma, prayers or a priesthood".
But the main god (Sky Father) is not alone. There are the Fire God, the Wind God, the Sun God, the Moon Goddess, the Water Goddess and many, many others, so it is quite polytheistic.
Christianity is also not really monotheistic when you also worship and pray to a lot of saints and angels. It is just to play with words.
If Tengrism has rituals instead of dogma, deities instead of gods, songs and drums (and talking with spirits) instead of "prayers" and shamans instead of priests....where is the difference? Maybe just that it has not yet been taken over by the "power people". It has not become a church. It has not yet been transformed into an institution.
Maybe it will be taken over by the music industry and focus on a performing art on stages? And in time it will just be a name for a certain kind of folk music and dance?
There is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion so people have different opinions about it. I would say that there is also no consensus over what shamanism is. It is often used in a generalised way to describe all kinds of indigenous magical practices in a wide range of cultures worldwide. The essence of the real, old core, shamanism has been lost into deluted, more romantic forms that can suit people in the cities. So the word is losing it´s meaning. Many abstract words lose their meanings!
Religion is a Latin word and to many languages it can not be translated because these languages do not have any equivalent term for it. Not a wonder! Of course it can be impossible to translate a word if you do not even know the meaning of it! We also use the foreign word shaman because we cannot translate it. The first western people, who met with shamanism in Siberia, called it ”devilish rites”.
According to Wikipedia religion is:
Any cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, world views, texts, sanctified places, ethics, or organizations, that relate humanity to the supernatural or transcendental. Religions relate humanity to what anthropologist Clifford Geertz has referred to as a cosmic "order of existence".
I make it shorter: a religion is a cultural system of ingredients that relate humans with the supernatural.
In that case all old cultures had such systems. It was so common that it was looked upon as reality and not something that could be named. "Shamanism" is a word that we put on their systems. Shamanism is also a cultural system of ingredients that relate people with the supernatural, but it is a religion that is focused on co-working with (the spirits of) nature, instead of just using and killing it.
One can wonder if our Christian religion really "relates humanity to the supernatural". At least it does not relate us to the supernatural in general. Shamanism is much more designed to do so and following that thread it cannot be wrong to claim that shamanism is a religion but Christianity is not.
So when a person insinuates that he is against all religions – what does he mean?
Maybe he means that he is against only our own religion, which might not at all be a real religion.
Maybe he is against the church (but in that case he would have said so?) Is he then against all institutions? Why not?
Maybe he means that he is against anything that should "relate us to the supernatural" as he claims that "the supernatural does not exist!"
OK! What is it that does not exist?
Supernatural? What is that? Super natura? Above nature. Above the material world = not visible to the physical eyes. Transcendental is another word for that and it is something that goes outside of, goes down through, and beyond nature, beyond the world, beyond materia, beyond the physical world. Beyond the world that we can see with the physical eye.
"Transcendental, i filosofi egenskap bortom tingens kategorier (till exempel godhet och skönhet)". Wikipedia
So it can be something that belongs to dreams! Do dreams exist? Dream therapy or any psychological therapy would be dealing with something supernatural, but people would say that a psychological therapy exists and can work and have real and useful effects. Still it can be based on "only fantasy".
OK Something supernatural is what we call an abstract noun!
Love, hate, beauty, anger, greed, happiness, fear are abstract nouns. Do they exist or do they not exist? No! Not in material form. They are more like spirits that can possess someone. It depends on how your language is made up.
Most people would say that anger exists (because they can experience how it feels). It is just because they know what I talk about. If I called anger a spirit instead of a feeling they would say ”no”, because they have learned (from fairy tales and films?) that a spirit is like a ghost, a real but invisible figure that is running around. They have decided to believe that it is something that they do not believe exists and then they deny the belief that they have created.
They also say that a spirit is just fantasy. But in that case it is something that people would say exists (as they do not deny fantasy) and then religion can be called fantasy therapy. What´s wrong with that? We already have that, but we use other words for it. It is just a playing with words.
The best way to describe such an abstract noun to children is to make a story where one person is always described as an incarnation of beauty, goodness, love, anger or greed. That figure becomes a symbol for a certain feeling.
Listening to these stories you can start recognizing all these figures within yourself. You can be full of love or full of anger. Then you can say that this figure is living in you, is using you to ”incarnate”. The next step is to consciously choose which feeling you want to be filled with by using your fantasy. That can be done by focusing strongly on the figure, that is in the story representing that specific quality, till you get into cohesion with it, you feel like it, identify with it. Et voilà! You have a god!
That is a fantastic invention for psychotherapy and now we can start making a system out of it to teach the ignorant population how to do and how to think! We write down the rules for it. We create schools for that! We create teachers! It grows. Et voilá! You have a religion!
The teachers are called priests and the teaching a priest is doing in a tempel can also be called mind manipulation. But that goes for our modern schools too, so if we do not like ”religions” we should also not like our school system. "Religion" (the reading in temples and monasteries) was the start of our schools. That kind of repeated reading is today called plugga in Swedish.
Our modern definition of the word religion is not the old one.
Cicero said that the word comes from legere, to read (to pick). Reading or listening (picking up knowledge) was (is) the first step in a learning process, but at that time it was focused on spirituality, cultus deorum (the worshipping of the gods). Those people who were honestly learning and taking part in the rituals in the temples were by him called religious (religiosi). The people who were offering in the temples many times a day only to please the gods (and not for learning) were called superstitious (superstitiosi) because their only interest was that their children should survive them (superstare = survive).
We get institutionalized and then we want to break free from that.
When a system grows big it attracts the psychopaths that want to use it to get power by taking over. Et voilà! We have the priests, that kind of priest that we say that we don´t like.
These priests understand that they can get more powerful by operating in groups, which can control bigger herds. If the groups come together the priests can get the whole population into the same institution and now there is a need for one person to be the alpha male..... Et voilà! They have created a church with a bishop.
Some seem to be convinced that these power people were products of something that they call religion, which would be something supernatural that had taken hold of those poor priests, who had been very good people if this transcendental entity called religion had not existed!
No, they use what the population is interested in, be it gods, health or money.
The ones, that we today call psychopaths, are just happy that we put that focus on the word religion (which we do not know the meaning of!!!) because they are not there any more. (Except for some wild Muslims that are still living in the medieval age, but they have no intention of hiding their intentions.)
Today our psychopaths operate through the political systems, Internet, Medical Companies, Food Companies, economy, war industri...... and we believe them and follow them.... but they have started to have problems with facebook and YouTube. I suppose they are busy inventing new algorithms that will fix the problem.
One demand from the Talking Stick is that the one who is holding it also speaks the truth. But before we can do that we have to train on it. Train to look into the own, mystic, dark, inner dream-world.
When it comes to other people we cannot really know the truth behind their words and actions, but still we tell others about how they are and in the same time we have a tendency to lie also about ourselves.
We often say that we like or dislike something or somebody, even if it is not true, just to be liked or to avoid trouble.
We say that we are fine even if we are not. We do the same with others, but too often in the opposite way: we say that they are sick even if they are not.
Focus on finding your own hidden emotions!
One thing we should learn from the Talking Stick is to stop telling how other persons are ”inside”, because we don´t know it. We should focus on learning to recognize different ”original feelings” in ourselves, which is also not easy. Christianity, Buddhism, shamanism, psychology... they all have mountains of knowledge about how to identify and treat various emotions and feelings within the own psyche. If we cannot even identify our own inner feelings and motivations, how then can we identify the deeper energy motions of another persons mind?
In a group the participants usually do not search for "own opinions". They say what is written in a book or spoken by a leader that they refer to and this leader has a certain intent (which might be obvious or hidden), but if the group is so big that it is called mainstream, with no single dominant leader, it is more difficult to see what is going on. You will have to step out of the group to become an individual, but then you will be accused, by the other sheep, of having stepped into another group and being brainwashed by it! (And maybe you have!)
To follow a group is a ”sheep behaviour” and a group can also be referred to as a ”spirit”. It is a ”bigger mind” that is controlling many small individuals who feel safe and taken care of by the group, who is like a ”fathers´s house”. The whole group shares the same dream, which is the fundament for it´s existence. So it becomes very dangerous to say something that the group does not like – you can get cast out from your home and be looked upon as an enemy! A sheep cannot understand how it is possible not to be part of a flock, so if you are not in my flock you must be in someone else´s flock. There is no third alternative for a good sheep.
Tell about your own status and not about someon else´s!
A fresh example of judging others blindly is from facebook:
”...i USA styr en patologisk narcissist...”
You can say truthfully that from reading the news about a person, you get a bad impression about him, that you get the impression that he might be a narcissist. But is it really OK to write that "he is...", which is to publish a clear statement (a truth), in this case in the form of a psychic diagnosis about someone else, a statement that might not be true? Not even for a trained doctor or psychologist is it OK to do so!
It is OK that I talk about my own impression, because then I talk about my own inner space. But if I judge someone else the next question is: how did I get this impression and what is it based upon? Did I meet this person in real life? How did I feel when I met him? Why did I feel this?
In this case the impression is not coming directly from that person, who is being judged, - it comes from someone else who has made a film, article or headline about him, so it is filtered through that third person, who is unknown to the judge/writer, if he/she has not met him. "That third person" can also be a spirit in the form of a flock of sheep with an unanimous agenda, that he/she knows nothing about.
If I did never meet this person, from where did I get so much information that I could make such a diagnosis? From having had long talks with his wife and children or from talking with his enemies?
Or just from headlines in the media that are having a certain agenda, sharing the same dream? Is this really my own opinion or am I just following the mainstream, my sheep flock, because I don´t want to expose myself to the risk of getting "cast out from the herd", which in nature would mean death and in business something similar.
Or am I just throwing my own frustrations on to another person that I want to blame for something within my self? The use of the Talking Stick is focused on at least trying to find out what is behind my emotions and opinions about the outer world.
Byron Katie has done work with exactly this, without using a stick, but her method is not far away from the Indian Talking Stick Method. Look closer at your dream!
The Talking Stick is also a tool to show who is "having the word" but when making a film this part is often taken care of by cameras, microphones and editing.
She has helped people to look inside themselves to understand what was behind their opinions of other persons.
Many are focused on the old idea of the
Church manipulating people and they blame ”religion” for
everything negative. But in reality ”religion” does not exist in
the form of something higher that would be manipulating people
against their will.
And people who want to manipulate the
population do not have to use any ”religion” to do that. They use
the tools that are available to them and if people believe that
”religion” is the cause of all evil (some say so!) in the sense
of ”a belief system that is focusing on a God”, then they just
invent an atheistic model that works in the same way.
The old word god means ”the
one that is being worshipped”. To
worship an invisible spirit, which is then to be called a god,
is the same as to worship an idea, a king, a prophet, a principle or
whatever that you are focusing on and taking your information from.
And obeying!
The word worship
is related to worth
and the German werden
(to become) and it comes from Gothic wairþan (to
turn into) from the root wer-
(to turn, bent).
To
worship a god is in
reality not different from becoming something
by turning into it.
You bend your mind into a desired direction, that you have chosen or that others have chosen for you.
It can be an idea, an
ideal, a company, a club, a skill, a profession......anything that we
focus on to become something more than what we were before. Something that
is worth it. By doing
this we get a higher value so we also become worth more.
We are
manipulated into believing that there has to be a God in the form of
a glorious picture of an invisible man with a name, giving commands
from a heaven. This belief is excellent and also needed for the new
priests who are today using IT-technology to lead the sheeps where
they want to lead them. Jesus was the first one to claim that he saw
people as sheep and that one man could lead the whole pack where he
wanted to.
If we believe what most people believe about
”religion” we cannot see that modern mind manipulation is
basically the same thing as the method they accuse the old religions
of.
This
is like running from the an old enemy looking only backwards all the
time and because of that falling right into the arms of his friend
who is waiting in front of you.
Internet
is working like a big brain (the artificial brain of Earth) and if we
can find and identify some main principles that it works with, then
we have found the aspects that in the old times would have been
called the qualities of the gods.
A human brain can focus on something and the Earth Brain can also
focus on something.
The focus of my brain creates certain
emotions in me and the focus of the Earth Brain creates certain
emotions in the population that is worshipping
it = is tuned into, turned into
it, because it finds it worth
or worthy to do so.
Imagine a control room with 100
people controlling the thoughts and feelings of a billion people.
Their goal is to capture your attention and to do that they have to
know how the human mind works. So says Tristan Harris, who used to
work in one of these control rooms as a Design Ethicist at Google.
He learned how to manipulate the
human mind when he was earlier a magician and he says that once
you know how to push people’s buttons, you can play them like a
piano. And this is exactly what product designers do to your
mind. Read more...
”You can precisely target a lie
directly to the people who are most susceptible! And because this is
profitable it is only going to get worse.”More in NewsVoice....
The manipulative tricks tech companies use to capture your attention
It is not possible to get rid of all conflicts because they are there all the time, but mostly they are so small that we just don´t care about them so much. If we have different opinions about something we often quickly talk about something else because we want to ”avoid conflict”. Especially in Sweden.
"In its more destructive forms, the need to avoid conflict also manifests itself as a strong reluctance to be direct, or even indirectly honest, with someone." Läs mer...
"...to be able to communicate with Swedes in a successful way, there are a few things you probably need to know. One of them is the fact that people from Sweden usually tries to avoid disagreement at almost all costs." Läs mer...
There are two ways of getting rid of a conflict. One way is to pretend that it doesn´t exist or to stop talking about it and the opposite way is to get curious and start investigating what the conflict is about. And learn something from it!
Most people don´t dare to do that because there is a risk that if we talk more about ”this subject” the conflict will get bigger and end with anger, tears and a broken relation. We have collectively decided that conflicts are negative and for this reason we have to avoid them. We must avoid everything that is negative! Make love not war! Only think about positive things like flowers, sunsets, good food, fine wine and sweet little kittens! But conflicts can also be thought of as something positive. It just depends on how curious we are and what kind of approach we choose.
But what is a conflict? It can be two people having different opinions about something. The quarrelling is often about who is right and who is wrong. To discuss ”how it is” is usually just leading to higher and higher voices and more stress and anger and of course it feels like being on a negative path. The conflict has become negative and destructive, but in the beginning we could have chosen to turn it into a creative conflict. A little mental adventure.
That sounds good, but in some cases it can be difficult without a Talking Stick, because the stick makes it very clear who is speaking and who is listening. You cannot interrupt the other person by screaming ”Dont´t interrupt me!” (Yes, it happens!)
The stick slows down the tempo and then the lower brain loses the power and the higher brain gets a chance. So now, why not just take a close look at the roots of the conflict? What is it made of? Here is a possibility to find out what it is that calls for our attention like a little child in danger.
I don´t mean that we should create conflicts just for the fun of solving them. But if they are already there we can treat them better than just pretending that they do not exists (if there is a negative feeling from this suppression the subconscious mind will store it till it gets solved and dissolved.)
Dale puts emphasis on not getting emotional in a conflict. (14:55) You
must control your emotions so that we can have (our controlled)
conflict without emotions.
A Talking Stick is saying the opposite:
”Please, take contact with your emotions and tell us what you
really feel!” The idea is that when the emotions are no longer
pushed back, when they are being expressed and listened to, they can
relax and stop fighting.
The difference is that Dale is creating a
discussion where different people are promoting and defending
opposite ideas, like in a court, and he calls it conflict.
Solving an emotional conflict is not the same as setting up a
court room for decision making.
His idea about creating a "conflict" to get better results in decision making seems to be a more creative method than the Swedish method of "alla ska tycka likadant".
A Talking Stick is almost a so called Medicine Item with the difference that it is for communication with people instead of spirits.
A Medicine Item should be wrapped i red and then packed in something else and put aside. It is personal and should not be handled by other people. It can even be a secret tool that other people should not even know about. According to Swiftdeer it is protected by the red color.
Apart from that story the red color has another effect: it wakes you up. It gives the brain a signal that something has to be attended to or noticed, so you get a little bit more energy and focus. Magical ceremonies always have ingredients that can shift your consciousness in various ways.
As the Talking Stick is not used in this way you can wrap it in any color, if you wish to take it with you when you travel. But take a material that you really like and that gives a good impression. Maybe with some embroidery. And notice the symbolism of the different colors! The red is still OK because it is a symbol for the heart.
But a Talking Stick session can begin with a situation where two people disagree about something so they are already upset and excited so they don´t need to get more awake from having a red blanket in front of them. They are already overstimulated and have to calm down. That is the situation, which is described in the old Legend about the Talking Stick.
When we are home, and especially if the family has many children, there can always pop up a situation where one person agrees to something that he/she doesn´t like to agree with. Or two persons having different opinions about something. Often one person wins and the other one gets silent but remains irritated for a while.
We believe that we forget all these irritations, but even if we do not remember what happened our subconscious mind remembers the feeling of irritation and it also remembers who the other person was (who caused the irritation). If that happens many times it will build up something deep inside, like the small water drops slowly filling a big glas.
An unfinished talk is the same as an unfinished action, which is called karma. It is an action that is still going on because it is waiting to get a chance to be finished. Such little pieces of karma can be called emotional hang-ups and they can create trouble in other situations.
-- I looked at a film with someone who suggested that the Talking Stick should always be hanging on the wall in a way that also a small child could reach it. That was a good idea, wasn´t it?
-- Yes, but we don´t have such problems, because we listen to our children, so we don´t need any Talking Stick.
-- Yeah...OK... but in case that there would be a little conflict? It can always happen, you know....
-- Well, yes, in that case we could use it.
That was a little example from reality.
It sounds good, but what would happen if A and B ended up in a conflict and then B suddenly takes up a Talking Stick and says that now A has to use it. Probably A will refuse. If you are in a conflict with someone (even if it is just about a piece of bread) the last thing you want to do is to obey this person! So the Talking Stick method will not work if you suddenly and unexpectedly present your stick to someone who is already irritated. That person will rather get a feeling that your stick is a weapon that you now want to use to win the fight.
A Talking Stick is not a magical object that works in it´s own way and solves all our problems by itself! It is like any other tool: you cannot use it well if you have not learned how to use it and also trained on it. It is good to have it in a conflict situation, but only if all the participants are used to it. So we should not start using it for the first time when a conflict is already active, because then the stick will just be associated with negative conflicts, the negative side of perceiving the world in different ways.
It would be better to train on it by having a little Talking Circle once a week. Without conflicts! Just for the purpose of learning and getting used to it. In such a circle everyone can tell the others about what has happened during the week, what was fun and what was not and why it was not etc.. with focus on the emotional effects of this and that. Then... in time... the stick will become a tool that can be used also in conflicts.
There is a reason why certain ceremonies are repeated every day in so many cultures.
