I've been thinking about the question, "What makes a spirit, a spirit?"
I'm currently writing Walking with Nature Spirits, and in the writing of this book I've been thinking about this question because of how I approach the work with nature spirits, but also because of the stereotypical imagery associated with nature spirits, which usually has them set up with imagery of gnomes, undines, slyphs, etc., basically humancentric shapes and appearances.
The benefit of the humancentric shapes is that it makes easy for us to identify with those spirits. The downside however is that we all too often get stuck filtering our experience of a given spirit on the basis of the human oriented shape we associate with it. This isn't limited to nature or elemental spirits either.
We see this same tendency to humanize the appearance and experience of spirits with Daemonic spirits, angelic spirits, and any other type of spirit out there. This tendency brings with it a kind of entitlement as well: Namely the entitlement that the spirits are really here to serve or work for us. It's a naïve belief that isn't fully accurate and can create potential problems when we adhere too strongly to notions of what we think spirits are or are not.
One of my main purposes for writing the Walking with Spirits series is to present an alternate perspective to spirit work that is rooted in building a collaborative relationship with the spirits, but also recognizes that to experience the spirits we must be willing to experience them on their terms as much as possible.
What does that look like?
When I work with a spirit what I try to do is engage the spirit on the level of experience that it chooses to show up at. What that means is that instead of expecting it to show up a specific way or in a specific form, I open myself to the experience of the spirit as it chooses to show up.
Sometimes that still includes a human form and human communication, but sometimes the experience is more direct, the feeling of sensations as the spirit makes itself known sensually. For example, I might be walking down a path and feel the spirit show up and connect with me emotionally or through physical sensations. I might experience a transmission of information.
We've gotten so used to spirits showing up in ways that are easily understandable to us, but I'm interested in what gets lost in the translation as it were, because I think that some of what a spirit could share does get lost in translation.
This brings me back to that question of what makes a spirit a spirit?
Is a spirit defined by the categories and taxonomies that we put it in or by the shapes it takes on and becomes for our benefit? Or is the spirit something we can't quite define because it doesn't fit our conventional human experience?
I don't have an answer to these questions...just observations and experiences that help me connect with the spirits, but also help me realize how filtered and biased that connection can be. I recognize that even with the approach I've taken which is a much more sensorial approach I can't necessarily remove all the bias and filter that comes with the human experience. I can be aware of it, but it is still a part of me, a part of the reality of my life, and perhaps it is something that the spirits find value in.
I wonder if they ask a similar question...what makes a human, a human?
