animism?

Originally Posted by norseman

If you look at the Gaia Theory, Lovelock states that the biomass of the Earth consists of the animate and the inanimate [mountains, seas, etc] and that they all have "life-force".
On the other hand, Qi is very difficult to describe but seems to only apply to the animate....

This article credits Qi to both animate & inanimate objects, ‘3,000 years ago, the ancient Qigong masters in China were practicing their meditative discipline to balance and invigorate the human energy field. They called this vital energy that pervades all forms, both animate and inanimate, Qi.’
http://twm.co.nz/energ.html

[norseman]

Considering the "life force", it could be argued that the animate, being largely water, would have an amorphous force compared with, say, Quartz with it's highly organised internal structure. Does that make a difference ? I have no idea.

One thing I am most unhappy with is the concept of "supernatural". In my pov, there is nothing outside of the natural world, therefore no supernatural. There is still much that we do not understand in the natural world, especially in the field of energies. Consider Ley Lines, what part do they play in life force ? I always regarded them as equivalent to lines of Qi. Just as an acupuncturist will stimulate Qi by placing needles in specific locations, then maintaining the Earth could be a matter of stimulating the Ley lines. Which perhaps explains why ancient structures were built of Ley Lines. So much to speculate on.

One thing. Meditation on a Ley Line is an experience not to be missed. The experience is deeper than normal but it is also difficult to break off as if you were being sucked in somehow.

Originally Posted by Sungirl

Can I check? Some people here are saying that inanimate objects, natural phenomenon and animals have a spirit others are saying they contain spirit like chi. There is a difference in my view.

I am personally of the first viewpoint but I wonder which others go along with?

I'm not saying the other is wrong, just interested in where other people are... and also to clarify for the OPer

Yeah, I agree, there is a difference.

I personally lean towards a middle between the two. I think that there is a universal animating principal of sorts. But I also think that individual things, whether animals, stones, people, etc. Have a unique allotment of vital force. Thus, an individual spirit (iffy word, but hey, it's part of the common vernacular) arises, that can have a type of awareness. Therefore I go into animist territory, I think?

Maybe it might be easier for me to discribe the first option as having a personality, sentience. Something that can be communicated with during a meditative state.

This means I can sit and talk to a tree. The communication comes in the form of pictures, feelings and sometimes something I interpret as words. Stones are the same.

I haven't yet managed it with animals, although I am sure that is more to do with my ability to hear rather than their ability to communicate.

When I think of things like rivers I find it a little harder to get my head round, although again I think it is to do with my ability.

Originally Posted by Sungirl

Maybe it might be easier for me to discribe the first option as having a personality, sentience. Something that can be communicated with during a meditative state.

That's how I understand it as well. Many tribal cultures that still hold animistic beliefs conceive of the object/subject as having it's own autonomous will and intelligence. I know that in some cultures, animals were prayed to so they would allow themselves to be hunted, and feed the people out of it's benevolence; so they were thought to have their own sentience and even agenda to some degree, that was reflected by their natural behavior.

When I think of things like rivers I find it a little harder to get my head round, although again I think it is to do with my ability.

I can understand that. They're much more 'large' and harder to relate to. It's interesting to note that the ancient Greeks and ancient Celts both had a animistic element to their religions, and rivers were seen as regional gods by the Greeks, and as goddesses by the Celts. Which, in my opinion, reflects their greater influence on the land, and can contribute to their remoteness, in terms of being understandable.

[norseman]

I can talk to rivers for hours and they talk back

They sng to me Norseman !

[norseman]

This one has a lot to say, Neville
http://s282.photobucket.com/albums/k...ghForcevid.mp4

But this one is quiet
http://s282.photobucket.com/albums/k...greenvid-1.mp4

[Hazel]

Thanks a lot everyone - this has helped a lot