Journeying through the unseen

In his second article on astroshamanism Franco Santoro tells how the zodiac can be used for more tha

Astroshamanism provides a map and tools for journeying through the path of life in search of Truth. This is acted out by using a strategic cosmology based on 12 sectors. The sectors are associated with the astrological signs when used as representations of the fragmented parts of our nature.

The 12 sectors portray the entire range of human potentials and possibilities that the astroshamanic seeker accepts to acknowledge, explore and integrate in their original unity. They are pathways of deep understanding about all the features in life. They include the highest and the lowest forms, and their aim is to teach us how to express them at their best.

In astroshamanism the zodiac is not used for horoscope readings or other forms of interpretation, but is explored through pragmatic healing actions and spiritual practices aimed at providing a direct experience and tangible results.

Astrology is probably the oldest form of symbolic language and shamanism is the most ancient method of healing. The distinctive feature of shamans is represented by their familiarity with states of consciousness that allows them to explore the spiritual dimension of reality and to help their community, themselves and their planet. To face these journeys, shamans connect with healing guides, spirits, angels and ultimately God. The relationship with this unseen world is the chief distinctive feature of shamanic cultures and constitutes one of the main tasks of astroshamanism.

The connection with the unseen realms, far from being an evasion from everyday reality, is aimed at healing our visible world. I cannot see God or spirits with my physical eyes, but I can see them through other human beings and the environment, when I decide to lay my prejudices aside and meet them as they truly are. By unveiling their nature, God will be embodied in them and I will uncover their essence.

As I learn to acknowledge God through them, I will also learn to become aware of how God operates in me. In exploring the mystery of the unseen realms and God, or whatever name, we use to describe That.

What this work basically underlines is the healing function of forgiveness. Forgiveness is learning to perceive all relationships as a proof of our sacred original nature, rather than as sources of grievances. It is about letting go of the garbage I have projected on others, which in the end is the same garbage I have projected on myself.

To forgive means to move beyond our limited perception and eventually even correct the whole idea that somebody did harm me or something went wrong. It is forgiveness for something that the other never did or that never happened, not for what occurred or was done. It is an ongoing scanning of our life aimed at releasing the blocks to our true perception, ultimately unveiling the authentic vision that abides beyond.

Franco Santoro is a shamanic facilitator and a member of the "Findhorn Foundation". He is the author of Astroshamanism: A Journey Into the Inner Universe and Astroshamanism: The Voyage Through the Zodiac. He lives in Findhorn and runs astroshamanism workshops in Scotland and other parts of the world.
Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Jeremy Corbyn faces a dilemma as Brexit solidifies: which half of his voters should he disappoint?

He comes from a tradition on the left that sees the EU as a capitalist club.

Imagine a man who voted to leave the European Economic Community in 1975. A man who spoke out against the Maastricht Treaty in 1993, saying that it “takes away from national parliaments the power to set economic policy and hands it over to an unelected set of bankers”. A man who voted against the Lisbon Treaty in 2008.

You don’t have to imagine very hard, because that man is Jeremy Corbyn. When campaigning for the Labour leadership in 2015, he told a GMB hustings, “I would ­advocate a No vote if we are going to get an imposition of free-market policies across Europe.”

When Labour’s Brexiteers gathered to launch their campaign in 2016, several seemed hurt that Corbyn and his shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, were not there with them. “It is surprising, when we voted against the advice of the chief whip on a number of European issues over the last decades, that Jeremy and John, who have always been in that lobby with us, that they would want to lead a campaign that isn’t even asking for a renegotiated position,” said the MP Graham Stringer.

I mention this because since the election campaign started in April, I keep having an odd experience – people insisting that Corbyn is not a Eurosceptic, and that he will use Labour’s new-found strength to argue for a softer Brexit. Others claim that Labour’s current position on freedom of movement (ending it) is the obvious, common-sense – even progressive – choice.

This matters. Look, if the evidence above doesn’t convince you that the Labour leader is intensely relaxed about exiting the European Union, I don’t know what else would. Yet it’s clear that some Labour activists strongly identify personally with Corbyn: they find it hard to believe that he holds different opinions from them.

The second factor is the remaking of Brexit as a culture war, where to say that someone is a Eurosceptic is seen as a kind of slur. Perhaps without realising it, some on the left do associate Euroscepticism with Little Englanderism or even flat-out racism, and see it as a moral failing rather than a political position.

But I’m not impugning Jeremy Corbyn’s character or morals by saying that he is an instinctive Brexiteer. He comes from a tradition on the left that sees the EU as a capitalist club. You can disagree with that premise but it’s a respectable line of reasoning.

Also, the Euroscepticism of Corbyn and his allies will undoubtedly give them an advantage in the months ahead; they are not consumed by fatalism, and the members of McDonnell’s shadow Treasury team feel that the removal of European state aid restrictions can help revive ailing bits of the British economy. They have a vision of what an ideal “Labour Brexit” would be – and it’s not just sobbing and begging Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel to take us back.

We do, however, need a reality check. Now that the necessary humble pie has been eaten, Labour’s unexpected revival at the ballot box means we can begin to treat Corbyn as a normal politician – with the emphasis on the second word. He’s not the Messiah, but he’s not a joke either. He is a charismatic campaigner who is willing to compromise on second-tier issues to achieve his main objectives.

From the general election, we can see just how good a campaigner Corbyn is: he can fire up a crowd, give disciplined answers to interviewers and chat amiably on a sofa. That throws into sharp relief just how limp his performances were last year.

He might have little else in common with Theresa May, but they both looked at the EU referendum and thought: yeah, I’m going to sit this one out. He called on activists to accept the EU “warts and all”; and said he was “seven, or seven and a half” out of ten in favour of staying in it.

For both leaders, this was a pragmatic decision. May did not want to be overtly disloyal to David Cameron, but neither did she wish to risk her career if the result went the other way.

Anyone in Labour would have been equally sane to look north of the border and back to 2014, and remember just how much credibility the party immolated by sharing stages with the Conservatives and allowing itself to be seen as the establishment. By limiting his involvement in the Remain campaign and whipping his MPs to trigger Article 50, Corbyn ended up with a fudge that gave Labour some cover in heavily pro-Brexit regions of the country.

That’s the politics, but what about the principle? I can’t shake the feeling that if Corbyn campaigned as hard for Remain in 2016 as he did for Labour in 2017, we would still be members of the European Union. And that matters to me, as much as left-wing policies or a change in the rhetoric around migrants and welfare claimants, because I think leaving the EU is going to make us poorer and meaner.

That’s why I worry that many of my friends, and the activists I talk to, are about to be disappointed, after waiting and waiting for Labour to start making the case for a softer Brexit and for the single market being more important than border controls. As Michael Chessum, a long-standing Momentum organiser, wrote on the New Statesman website, “Recognising the fact that immigration enriches society is all very well, but that narrative is inevitably undermined if you then choose to abolish the best policy for allowing immigration to happen.”

Labour’s success on 8 June was driven by its ambiguous stance on Brexit. To Leavers, it could wink at ending freedom of movement when they worried about immigration; to Remainers, it offered a critique of the immigrant-bashing rhetoric of recent times. But can that coalition hold as the true shape of Brexit solidifies? Over the next few months, Jeremy Corbyn’s biggest decision will be this: which half of my voters should I disappoint?

Helen Lewis is deputy editor of the New Statesman. She has presented BBC Radio 4’s Week in Westminster and is a regular panellist on BBC1’s Sunday Politics.

This article first appeared in the 22 June 2017 issue of the New Statesman, The zombie PM

0800 7318496