Bring4th

Significator of the Body: The Shaman



We have literally nothing specific concerning this card from Ra. However, there are a few quotations which can gain us much ground if we are careful to analyze them.

60.20 Due to the nature of the physical vehicle, disharmony shows up as a blockage of growth or an uncontrolled growth since the primary function of a mind/body/spirit complex’s bodily complex is growth and maintenance.

We know that the Significator is the "very nature" of the complex in question -- in this case, the body. According to the above quotation, the "primary function" of the body complex is growth and maintenance, although this card's imagery suggests that there is more at play here. Recall that the Significator depicts the body complex as a static whole (the Great Way is its dynamic counterpart), and therefore the root concepts of the first four cards of the Cycle -- Matrix, Potentiator, Catalyst, and Experience -- must be contained within this card. We know from the previous archetypes (8-11) that growth and maintenance are key, because we see that the Wheel forces change ("growth") just as the Enchantress allows this change to occur, and we also see that Homeostasis is a natural force of maintenance, and the Sage can only redirect this maintained balance. But the Significator is an Archetype all on its own and must, therefore, have its own unique set of concepts. My best guess would be that the simple and unified concept of the Significator prior to the veiling was growth and maintenance. Now that we have a veiled experience, the Significator is complex. Therefore, there is much more at play.

Consider the next quotation:

78.19 The seed concept of the significator being a complex introduces two things: firstly, the Creator against Creator in one sub-Logos in what you may call dynamic tension; secondly, the concept of free will, once having been made fuller by its extension into the sub-Logoi known as mind/body/spirit complexes, creates and re-creates and continues to create as a function of its very nature.

Creator against Creator! What a concept!

Because we know that “the body is the creature of the mind” (64.19), we know that he body is Created and not Creator. If the body were possessed of its own free will, we would find that it is not in the direct command of the mind. The only instances of this kind of experience (where the body does not answer the mind) is when the mind is in conflict with itself (Creator against Creator), or when the body is so distorted that it is not capable of responding.

My interpretation of this particular quotation is that he “Creator against Creator in one sub-Logos” refers to the opposition between the true self and the ego self. Both are Creators and it is fully within the power of the latter to choose to oppose and even subjugate the former within the span of an incarnation. The freedom of the Significator of the Mind is the freedom to believe whatever it wants. Prior to the veiling, there was no such freedom because knowledge of the truth was the only option. When this freedom was given, the ego-self was born, and this ego-self is capable of inventing its own belief system according to its own desires to know truth, falsity, or a mixture of the two. The complexity of the body is a response to this freedom, and because the mind never fully penetrates the veil, it never has complete access to truth and therefore never witnesses this complete access manifest in the body. Thus, the body remains complex and in many ways mysterious to the mind.

We can find even further evidence that the new Creator formed after the veil is the Significator of the Mind in this next quotation:

83.18 The mechanism of the veiling between the conscious and unconscious portions of the mind was a declaration that the mind was complex. This, in turn, caused the body and the spirit to become complex.

The body and spirit only became complex in response to the freedom given to the mind. Because the mind was veiled from itself, the body and spirit also had to be veiled in order to provide the mind (which communicates between the two) the freedom to choose either truth or falsity as it likes.

One more quote to further elucidate the concept of the veiling in the Significator of the Body:

83.19 Questioner: Would you give me an example of a complex activity of the body that we have now and how it was not complex prior to the veil?

Ra: I am Ra. Prior to the great experiment a mind/body/spirit was capable of controlling the pressure of blood in the veins, the beating of the organ you call the heart, the intensity of the sensation known to you as pain, and all the functions now understood to be involuntary or unconscious.

Here we see the great interplay between the male and female principles within the archetypes. The Matrix of the Body is a female archetype and as such is that which is veiled, that which is unseen or relegated to the unconscious. The blindfold over the eyes of the figure in Archetype #8 hammers this point home. The Sage, on the other hand, the Potentiator of the Body, is male and therefore present to the mind, offering it various possibilities for action based on knowledge of the effects and consequences of acting thus and so. A Taoist alchemy master, for example, has the power to effect great change in the energies of the body. This power is part of the lifting of the veil between the conscious and unconscious aspects of the body and therefore is properly of a movement of the mind, yet it is reflected in the relationships of the archetypes of the body.

Ultimately, the point I am trying to make is this: the body is complex insofar as the entire range of its movements are not within the power of the Potentiator to change. The complexity of the body is exactly the reverse of the complexity of the mind. Whereas the Significator of the Mind is free to believe whatever it wants and is therefore a Creator, this freedom comes at a cost: the Significator of the Body is greatly limited in the motions that it is capable of making. In order for the mind to Create, the body must sacrifice its freedom to the mind in order that it may be Created. This is why I have renamed this card “The Shaman”. The Shaman is always willing to sacrifice the comfort of his body in order to accomplish the Great Work.

So in comparing the Significator of the Mind and the Significator of the Body, we find that the veiling brings freedom to the mind, but it also brings limitation to the body. Prior to the veiling, the movements of the body were far less a limiting device, for there were many, many more possible modes of use, since all these possible modes were instantly known to the mind. The veiling took most of this freedom away in order that we may have the freedom to choose which modes of bodily movement we would prefer to explore. I believe Q'uo says somewhere that without the veiling, life would be like playing a video game with the cheat codes. It's just not the same unless it is a challenge.


Let us now consider the specific images in this archetype.

Recall that the body is a "reflection of in opposites" of the mind. In considering this Significator, we must keep the Significator of the Mind always at hand. The figure here is suspended, dangling in a structure that has two pillars and a cross-bar. Appropriately, the only other archetype which depicts two pillars and a cross-bar is the Hierophant, the Significator of the Mind. Yet there is a major difference between these similar structures. The Significator of the Mind is depicted within man-made construct, but the Significator of the Body is depicted within a natural construct, namely, two rooted trees with a branch suspended between them. This difference underscores the relationship between the body as one of Creator and Creation. The construct within which the mind finds itself is a construct of its own making (a belief system), whereas the construct within which the body finds itself is one imposed upon it by a greater force (i.e. the mind).

Another similarity between these two Significators is that both are firmly fixed: the Heirophant is bound to a rectangular object on the ground and the Shaman is bound to the crossbar above. This is the second reflection in opposites: the Hierophant stands upright, rooted in the physical reality as it learns, safeguarded by the firm construct about it, but the Shaman is fixed to the construct itself, with no direct connection to the ground out of which the construct springs. In general, these symbols mean to me that the Heirophant is fully in command of what will become. The Hierophant projects the magical gesture, willing the physical reality to conform to the command of the mind. The Shaman, on the other hand, hangs from a natural structure: two trees which are rooted in the ground and support a wooden cross-beam. Whereas the Hierophant constructs its own reality, the Shaman is given a reality which it must make the best of. The Hierophant Creates through the magical gesture which then projects its will; whereas, the Shaman must offer of itself in order to manifest the Creation commanded by the Heirophant: seeds are sown into the ground which then grow and become the vines which coil around the trunks upon which the Shaman hangs.

The Heirophant wears spectacular clothing, displaying its greatness to those which serve it on both the right and left hand sides; whereas, the Shaman wears plain clothing and has no servants. The Shaman appears very common, normal, gross even. The Great Work of the Shaman, though, is its sacrifice. It is this sacrifice which gives power to that which is created and it is this sacrifice which ultimately yields the abundance of fruit seen in Card #12.

What is sacrificed? What are the seeds? I have pondered this long and hard. In my card, there are four seeds. Are they the four elements? Though I am open to this interpretation, it seems less revealing than other interpretations. I imagine that they are Time, Resources, Energy, and Comfort. In order to manifest anything in the physical world, one must spend time to do it, one must sacrifice resources (money, supplies, etc.), one must bring energy into the act (repetition, will to continue despite setbacks, etc.), and one must suffer through whatever discomfort is necessary in order to achieve the desired end. These are all the things that are sacrificed.

The fruit seems clear to me as the ultimate goal of the act of creation, the fruits of your labor.

The attachment of the Shaman to the physical construct is a symbol of the extreme limitation of inhabiting a 3D body.

Finally, the most esoteric symbol in this card is the inverted crux ansata, the ankh which is formed by the crossed legs and bound hands. Before I offer any commentary, let’s hear what Ra has to say about this symbol.

93.24 The crux ansata is a part of the concept complexes of the archetypical mind, the circle indicating the magic of the spirit, the cross indicating that nature of manifestation which may only be valued by the losing. Thus the crux ansata is intended to be seen as an image of the eternal in and through manifestation and beyond manifestation through the sacrifice and the transformation of that which is manifest.

The inverted crux ansata, then, places emphasis on the means of manifesting or Creating your reality: among all the possible paths, one possibility must be singled out, selected, committed to, and have all the energies of the body and mind poured into it in order for the experience to occur. The inversion of this symbol within the context of this card gives us a story. The mind decides to experience a particular distortion of the body, sending this signal into the physical world. The signal enters the foot of the Shaman and must traverse through the crossed legs in an act of extended commitment. When enough time, energy, resources and discomfort are spent, they are dropped to the ground from the circle shape as seeds of manifestation which bring the eternal into the physical world. This process constantly repeats and thus the manifestation, the body, is constantly changing.

I find your commentary to be as inscrutable as Ra's original channelings. Perhaps you should take things one sentence at a time, and explain what each word in each sentence means.

Also, I note that the constellation Pisces is above the crossbar. Does it have any significance?

These threads are somewhat crude. I know they can be dense, but it's an effort to teach myself the material as much as it is an effort to assist others. I'm still working on grasping it well enough to present it in more common-sense terms. Hopefully this effort is apparent in the most recent threads I've written, the threads on the Spirit archetypes.

Also, Ra says that the constellations on the cards were added later and are not part of the original images as given. Those who added the stars did so because those were the astrological signs that they associated with the archetypes. Ra's suggestion to remove them tells me either 1. that the attempt to directly associate astrological signs and planets with archetypes is misguided, or 2. that these are the wrong associations.

Thanks. I'm glad you're attempting to explain these, but I'm finding it hard to follow. By chance I'm now re-reading book 4 for the 4th time, in an attempt to understand Ra's explanation of the Tarot...but having no more success than the previous 3 times.

I think that the characteristics of Pisces fits in with the theme of the hanged man, i.e. introversion and reflection, but I think the danger comes from people going "oh, I'm a pisces, therefore the hanged man must represent me" whereas all the archetypes come into play for everyone.

What helped me in approaching book 4, Eddie, was a three-fold perspective:

First, I had to keep in mind that the terms Ra uses, especially "significator" and "potentiator," have standard definitions and usages. Ra always tries to stay close to these definitions.

Second, I realized that the information which was being presented in the Archetypes was the same information which had been presented in the previous 3 books, but the system of archetypes presents it in a more structured and precise way.

Third, I knew that if these archetypes are the "blueprint of all energy expenditures" in 3D, that they must be moving all the time in my life and I just don't realize it. So I would take each card, assemble all the features I thought belonged in that archetype, try to grasp it the best I could, and then I would watch my life to see if I saw anything that had those features. The Significators and Great Ways, however, were the most difficult archetypes to approach in this way because they are ever-present, rather than moving as a cycle. So, to give an example, I looked at Archetype 17, the Catalyst of the Spirit, the Star card, and saw that it was a naked woman pouring out two pitchers of water. That told me that there was an experience of extreme vulnerability and simultaneous release that I needed to be looking out for. Eventually, in the drama of my life, I would witness this, and then later I would reflect on the relationship this experience had to other experiences (such as the Potentiator and the Experience of the Spirit, for example.)

Perhaps I should write a thread about this approach...

(08-28-2012, 05:39 PM)JustLikeYou Wrote: [ -> ]First, I had to keep in mind that the terms Ra uses, especially "significator" and "potentiator," have standard definitions and usages. Ra always tries to stay close to these definitions.

What is the standard definition of significator? "That which signifies" is only marginally helpful.

(08-29-2012, 07:49 AM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-28-2012, 05:39 PM)JustLikeYou Wrote: [ -> ]First, I had to keep in mind that the terms Ra uses, especially "significator" and "potentiator," have standard definitions and usages. Ra always tries to stay close to these definitions.

What is the standard definition of significator? "That which signifies" is only marginally helpful.

I like to think of it as "that which creates significance from experience" i.e. You, the questioner who has become aware of the uses of catalyst. The Significator makes use of Experiences in order to transform themselves into a configuration closer to their True Self.

This is my view in any case.

The word "significator" has a very specific meaning in the context of tarot readings. This is probably the general concept that Ra was pulling from.

It also has an abundance of other usages in various spiritual and mystical fields

From one of the links from the google search, the specific meaning in the context of tarot readings is "a card that is usually chosen or drawn to represent the querent in the reading."

Could you elaborate a little more on how you see that relating to Ra's use of the term?

Well, in the first place, I think a straightforward definition of this particular term is not going to be terribly useful because it is the context of its usage that really fills it with meaning. In other words, to get a good feel for what the word "significator" means, it would help to actually do some readings in which the significator card is relevant. Then you can see how this concept interacts with the concepts that surround it within the context of the reading.

That said, the whole reading is about the querent. That there is a significator card within the reading is a strange phenomenon when you think about it. It is like your conscious presence within your dreams. The whole dream is about you, but the whole you is also inside of that dream. It's a paradox. If you know anything about set theory, you might consider the set of all sets. This set is paradoxically found within itself (for how could it be the set of all sets if it did not contain the set of all sets?). Thus, the Significator is the whole when pictured in relation to the aspects which are in motion within that whole. This is precisely how I have interpreted the term in my own threads.

I find the best way to understand the different categories of archetypes is to get your deck out and place the cards in the format Ra suggests (as seen here http://www.thirddensity.com/tarot/ ) and just ponder all the cards and how they relate to each other. I think the Archetypes are easiest to understand in context, through their relationships with the other archetypes.