Shamanism: It Ain't Native American Religion!
Starr`
http://www.metista.com/starrhawke/Aint.html
Shamanism: It Ain't Native American Religion!
When you hear the word "shamanism," what images jiffy-pop into your
mind's eye? Most folks picture feather head-dresses, buffalo hides,
medicine wheels and dream-catchers - all images associated with Native
American cultures. But contrary to popular opinion, a "shaman" is not
an Indian medicine man, and "shamanism" is not a Native American
religion. In fact, many Native Americans find the terms "shaman" and
"shamanism" offensive.
The word "shaman" actually originates among the natives of Siberia,
where it describes a specialized type of holy person. The shamans of
Siberia interact with deities and spirits not only with prayer, ritual
and offerings, but through direct contact with the spirits themselves.
With the aid of rhythmic drumming and chanting, the shaman enters a
very deep or "ecstatic" trance. (In discussions of shamanism, the word
"ecstasy" is used in its original sense, from the Greek roots ex and
histanai meaning "out of place" or "out of the physical" - in other
words an out-of-body mystical state) This trance frees the shaman's
consciousness from the body, allowing it to "fly" into the realms the
spirits inhabit, and to experience these "Otherworlds" with all the
senses of the ordinary physical realm.
Yet, shamanic journeys are more than mystical encounters with spirits;
shamans undertake trance-journeys for practical purposes, in service
to their community. A shaman may journey in the Otherworlds to gather
information from the spirits, perform healings, guide the spirits of
the dead to resting places, gain spiritual favor and power, or any
number of other reasons. Like priests in Western society, shamans are
not self-appointed, but called to their tasks by the spirits
themselves, and then trained and recognized by their Elders and the
community.
This specialized, sacred role of the shaman exists in many cultures
outside Siberia, and the accounts of ecstatic trance-journeys are
remarkably similar around the world. The ecstatic trance seems to open
the human mind to archetypal experiences transcending cultural
boundaries. The spiritual realms are almost always experienced in
three layers: one equivalent to the physical plane of the earth,
another to the heavens above, and a third that lies below the earth.
Each culture interprets these realms and their inhabitants slightly
differently, but the similarities are enough to suggest that the
pattern of imagery arises from the process of the trance-journey
itself, rather than from cultural expectations. There is even evidence
that the ecstatic trance-journey may have been part of the development
of all religions, including Christianity. Although the practice of the
trance-journey has all but vanished in many cultures, remnants of it
exist in myths and traditions.
Since any Western words for the role disappeared along with the
practice, "shaman" was adopted into English from Russian in
approximately 1700. It describes not only the Siberian shamans, but
any community-recognized specialists of the ecstatic trance-journey,
whatever their culture or religion may be. The term "shamanism" refers
to the typical practices and beliefs of these spiritual specialists;
it includes the methods of ecstatic trance-journey, and the beliefs
and methods that arise from it. "Shamanism" also describes religions
like those of Siberia which support and depend upon the shaman as a
necessary central figure to their practices (much as Catholicism
supports and depends upon on priests). These types of religions are
moderately rare, and most modern uses of the word "shamanism" refer to
trance-journey practices used within a religion, rather than to a
religion itself.
Although Euro-American cultures don't support the classical role of a
"shaman," there is a modern effort to re-introduce shamanic practices
to the West. Known as neo-shamanism, this spiritual movement adapts
the methods of the shamanic trance-journey to the needs of modern
society. Like traditional shamanism, neo-shamanism is not a religion,
but a set of practices and techniques used within existing belief
systems. Neo-shamanism focuses on spiritual and psychological healing,
and is finding acceptance not only within alternative belief systems,
but also among some Christian and other mainstream religious groups,
as well as in certain branches of psychotherapy.
Unfortunately, the term "shamanism" has been misused in popular
culture for many years. The entertainment industry has used "medicine
man" and "shaman" interchangeably (and usually inaccurately) to
describe holy men and women of Native America. The public began to
assume that "shaman" was a Native American word, and that "shamanism"
was a universal Indian Religion -- but there is no universal "Indian
Religion." There are hundreds of Indian Nations in North America, each
with its own culture, language, and spiritual belief system. Many of
these Nations are very different from one another in their religious
traditions, and none of them describe their beliefs as shamanism. Even
from a scholarly standpoint, few Native systems can be accurately
described as "shamanism" - the ecstatic trance-journey is simply not a
major part of most North American Indian cultures.
This confusion is reinforced by commercialized pseudo-indian groups
that sprang up in the late 1970's. Focused mainly on New Age
alternative healing methods and environmental awareness, these groups
misrepresent themselves as genuine teachers of Indian traditions.
Exploiting the stereotype of Native Americans as ecological warriors
and spiritual healers, they commonly charge high fees for teachings
and ceremonies, a practice particularly offensive to traditional
Native Americans. Although the teachings of these movements may be
valid in their own right, they are neither traditional nor typical of
Indian beliefs, nor are they shamanic, as they rarely if ever stress
the ecstatic trance-journey as a central practice. Yet the movement
continues to misrepresent itself as both Indian and shamanism.
As a result, many Native Americans see the use of the word "shamanism"
as the height of an offensive stereotype and commercial exploitation
of their people's beliefs. Many neo-shamanists and scholars are
sensitive to this issue, and strive to educate the public about
exploitation of indigenous cultures, as well as correcting common
misconceptions about the words "shaman" and "shamanism."
A "shaman" is a specialist and master of the ecstatic trance-journey,
not a synonym for tribal healer, holy person or medicine man.
"Shamanism" is the practice of ecstatic trance-journey, and the
typical beliefs and techniques that arise from and support it.
Shamanism is not a catch-all term for indigenous religion, earth-based
religions, spiritual healing, or beliefs in totems, animal guardians
or nature spirits. These misconceptions about shamanism are promoted
by both well-meaning and fraudulent teachers, books, periodicals and
web pages. They need to be corrected both for the preservation of
traditional Native American cultures, and for the advancement of
spiritual learning in the West.
Rocky
Excellent post. You don't give up, do you! Suggestion: post the message once
each month at the top of the list. That might help narrow the discussion to
shamanism?
From my perspective, a fundamental aspect of shamanism that tends to not be
discussed is the difference between the imaginal and transpersonal nature of
spirits and the huge importance of that difference.
I have just started looking at this newsgroup again after many months of not
doing so. It seems more scattered and nonsensical than ever, (confusion
about NA religions and shamanism as prevalent as always) but it is fun to
see your good writing here still.
Rocky
Starr`
>Hello Starr!
Hiya Rocky!
>Excellent post.
Thank you:)
>You don't give up, do you!
*They* <looking over my shoulder nervously > won't let me give up.
>Suggestion: post the message once
>each month at the top of the list. That might help narrow the discussion to
>shamanism?
Not a bad idea... or at least post it whenever the topic comes up. I
have trouble remembering to pay the mortgage each month, so I'm not
real sure that I'd remember to post something every month! <g>
>From my perspective, a fundamental aspect of shamanism that tends to not be
>discussed is the difference between the imaginal and transpersonal nature of
>spirits and the huge importance of that difference.
You and I have touched on that before -- I found your take on it very
interesting, though I'd forgotten about it until now. Want to give
refresher on your approach?
Starrhawke
*^v^*
Crowfoot
starr...@metista.com (Starr`) wrote:
> Copyright Ā© 2000,2001 Victoria A. McElroy, All Rights Reserved.
> http://www.metista.com/starrhawke/Aint.html
>
> Shamanism: It Ain't Native American Religion!
>
> When you hear the word "shamanism," what images jiffy-pop into your
> mind's eye? Most folks picture feather head-dresses, buffalo hides,
> medicine wheels and dream-catchers - all images associated with Native
> American cultures. But contrary to popular opinion, a "shaman" is not
> an Indian medicine man, and "shamanism" is not a Native American
> religion. In fact, many Native Americans find the terms "shaman" and
> "shamanism" offensive.
Many others use it freely among themselves but are uneasy about using
it around White people, just as among themselves they will call
themselves "Indians" without a momen'ts hesitation, but with outsiders
will stick to the PC "Native American". A number of NA people I know
hate the term "medicine man", which they consider derogatory, but
find the term "shaman" both dignified and accurate.
So while shamanism is not confined to American Indian cultures, and
certainly didn't originate with them, they are not to be *excluded*
from considerations of shamanism; and as members of shamanic cultures
they do have a right, IMO, to express their opinions of White efforts
to reconstruct a broader shamanism for themselves, with or without
appropriations from NA (or other First Nation) culures.
> Like priests in Western society, shamans are
> not self-appointed, but called to their tasks by the spirits
> themselves,
Not necessarily. According to at least one source (SHAMANIC VOICES,
by Joan Halifax, a book I've found extremely interesting and infor-
mative), "When certain signs have appeared at birth indicating the
sacred and special condition of the neonate, the people of a culture
are sometimes made aware of a newborn's destiny as a shaman. The
shaman's vocation may also be passed from generation to generation,
creating a shamanic lineage." (p. 5, Penguin edition); and in this
book Leonard Crow Dog is included as an example of a shaman who comes
from a familial line of such people. Certainly no one so chosen would
go on to become a shaman without a vocation from the spirits of his
family, clan, or nation, but being picked out very early and trained
to expect this vocation is also part of the preparation in some cases.
> most modern uses of the word "shamanism" refer to
> trance-journey practices used within a religion, rather than to a
> religion itself.
I think you may refer here to, for example, South American shamanic
traditions that operate in tandem, if not actually within, the Cath-
olicism the Spanish brought to that part of the world? Would you
also include such things as, say, Hassidic ecstacies in the Jewish
tradition (not a tradition I am deeply familiar with myself, but I
do know a little abut it)?
> Although Euro-American cultures don't support the classical role of a
> "shaman," there is a modern effort to re-introduce shamanic practices
> to the West. Known as neo-shamanism
Thanks, that's a very clear presentation of the situation as I see it,
too.
> describe holy men and women of Native America. The public began to
> assume that "shaman" was a Native American word
But once the idea of the American Indians as descendants of northern
Asian peoples who came to this continent via a land bridget to Alaska,
I think the generatlization of the Siberian term "shaman" to similar
practices among NAs here became a substratum of that belief. For the
record, this same book derives the word from a Vedic word I can't
write here because I don't have the right markings, "meaning, 'to
heat oneself or practice austerities', indicating "influences by
Paleo-Oriental civlizations." Many NA groups, by the way, energetically
reject the idea of arrival by land-bridge, since that undercuts their
political claims to have "always" been on, and derived from, this
particular land.
> There are hundreds of Indian Nations in North America, each
> with its own culture, language, and spiritual belief system. Many of
> these Nations are very different from one another in their religious
> traditions, and none of them describe their beliefs as shamanism.
Depends on who you talk to or whose verbatim statements you read,
though in some -- not all -- cases there may be an issue of trans-
lation into English. Joe Green, speaking in English (and rather
elegant English, too), a Paviotso Indian: "Indians were put on this
earth with trees, plants, animals, and water, and the shaman gets
his power from them", etc. Rosie Plummer, also Paviotso, uses the
same word, as does Joel (no last name given) of the Dogrib group
(North Woods Indian), almost all the Alaskan natives quoted, and
some of the South Americans.
> Even
> from a scholarly standpoint, few Native systems can be accurately
> described as "shamanism" - the ecstatic trance-journey is simply not a
> major part of most North American Indian cultures.
See above, which is only a partial reckoning from this one source;
others show up in other books on my shelves.
> Although the teachings of these movements (New Age, '70's) may be
> valid in their own right, they are neither traditional nor typical of
> Indian beliefs, nor are they shamanic, as they rarely if ever stress
> the ecstatic trance-journey as a central practice. Yet the movement
> continues to misrepresent itself as both Indian and shamanism.
Mostly the ones that got involved at that time with the "sacred" use
of peyote and other hallucinogens, and those currently touting the
use of the South American vine Ayahuasca, insisted on using the term,
presumably because thanks to the drugs, they really *did* have
"supernatural" (if not always ecstatic) journeys on which they met
spirit beings and were sometimes taught songs and techniques.
> A "shaman" is a specialist and master of the ecstatic trance-journey,
> not a synonym for tribal healer, holy person or medicine man.
> "Shamanism" is the practice of ecstatic trance-journey, and the
> typical beliefs and techniques that arise from and support it.
> Shamanism is not a catch-all term for indigenous religion, earth-based
> religions, spiritual healing, or beliefs in totems, animal guardians
> or nature spirits. These misconceptions about shamanism are promoted
> by both well-meaning and fraudulent teachers, books, periodicals and
> web pages. They need to be corrected both for the preservation of
> traditional Native American cultures, and for the advancement of
> spiritual learning in the West.
I think the situation is vastly more complex, given that good arguments
can be made that the ecstatic trance-journey by itself is not sufficient
to qualify a person as a shaman; what of the LSD venturers of the '60s?
People who have hallucinations because of fever, or great duress of
one kind or another, or psychotic breaks? But here we see exactly the
kind of diversity of definition I raised earlier: I find William's
definition too simple, too undifferentiated from various kinds of
hallucinatory experience, and barren of other elements that make
shamanism what it is: spirit helpers, spirit-given song and ritual
to be brought back for the benifit of the group, an expectation of and
dedication to spirit-aided healing, and a strong tie to tribal land
and a traditional way of living on it, however much that way may have
been changed by modernity (snowmobiles and rifles instead of sledges
and spears or bows, say).
And others here undobutedly differ from my definition as well.
Perhaps I am more of a "classicist", then; but at what point does
neo-shamanism become so neo, and so divorced from its classic roots,
as to cease to be shamanism at all?
--
Crow
Starr`
for a general audience, rather than an already knowledgable one --- so
it is necessarily simplified a bit. I wasn't really expecting to have
to argue these points, but.... erm... ok, I guess. But if you want
to explore this further, can you narrow it down to one point, or split
it up in different threads?
I wrote:
>> In fact, many Native Americans find the terms "shaman" and
>> "shamanism" offensive.
Crowfoot responded:
>Many others use it freely among themselves but are uneasy about using
>it around White people,
Regardless.... folks need to be aware that in many parts of the
country, not to mention many forums online (like this one) they will
not be well recieved by Natives if they're tossing around the S- word
in relation to Indians.
All Natives aren't the same. There are different attitudes in
different parts of the country, affected by any number of things,
including how much contact the particular Nation has had with the more
blatant frauds and liars.
<clipped>
>So while shamanism is not confined to American Indian cultures, and
>certainly didn't originate with them, they are not to be *excluded*
>from considerations of shamanism;
Well, I didn't say they should be. But since we're doing the whole
"for the record" thing......... many indigenous cultures also object
to the whole western habit of cross-cultural categorizations like
"shaman". It tends to force very different tribal peoples into
western cookie cutters.
>and as members of shamanic cultures
>they do have a right, IMO, to express their opinions of White efforts
>to reconstruct a broader shamanism for themselves, with or without
>appropriations from NA (or other First Nation) culures.
Now you've lost me..... why would members of another culture have any
right to say what I am doing in regards to my own and my people's
belief system, so long as I'm not appropriating theirs? Not all "white
shamanism" is a reconstruction, btw.... it's just the public
awareness of it that is new.
I wrote:
>> Like priests in Western society, shamans are
>> not self-appointed, but called to their tasks by the spirits
>> themselves,
Crowfoot responded:
>Not necessarily. According to at least one source (SHAMANIC VOICES,
>by Joan Halifax, a book I've found extremely interesting and infor-
>mative), "When certain signs have appeared at birth indicating the
>sacred and special condition of the neonate, the people of a culture
>are sometimes made aware of a newborn's destiny as a shaman. The
>shaman's vocation may also be passed from generation to generation,
>creating a shamanic lineage." (p. 5, Penguin edition); and in this
>book Leonard Crow Dog is included as an example of a shaman who comes
>from a familial line of such people. Certainly no one so chosen would
>go on to become a shaman without a vocation from the spirits of his
>family, clan, or nation, but being picked out very early and trained
>to expect this vocation is also part of the preparation in some cases.
I'm not understanding your argument.... Even hereditary shamans still
have to be chosen by the spirits. They aren't a shaman until the
spirits, and the culture, says they are. They don't just declare
themselves a shaman, and expect to be recognized as such. Yes, the
calling can be inherited, the predisposition to shamanize or a talent
for it can be inherited, and after all totems are clan
spirits/ancestors - and yes, there are signs in many cultures that
would suggest a future shamanic vocation -- but those signs are given
by the spirits. In any case, shaman's still aren't self-appointed.
>> most modern uses of the word "shamanism" refer to
>> trance-journey practices used within a religion, rather than to a
>> religion itself.
>
>I think you may refer here to, for example, South American shamanic
>traditions that operate in tandem, if not actually within, the Cath-
>olicism the Spanish brought to that part of the world? Would you
>also include such things as, say, Hassidic ecstacies in the Jewish
>tradition (not a tradition I am deeply familiar with myself, but I
>do know a little abut it)?
Nope -- I'm refering to "most modern uses of the word shamanism".
Yes, ecstatic trance journeys are found in many syncretic religions,
and in Jewish traditions, along with most other religious traditions,
if that's your question?
<clip>
>> describe holy men and women of Native America. The public began to
>> assume that "shaman" was a Native American word
>
>But once the idea of the American Indians as descendants of northern
>Asian peoples who came to this continent via a land bridget to Alaska,
>I think the generatlization of the Siberian term "shaman" to similar
>practices among NAs here became a substratum of that belief.
That's really a stretch.... the use of shaman and shamanism as
non-culturally specific English terms goes back far before the land
bridge theories.
>Many NA groups, by the way, energetically
>reject the idea of arrival by land-bridge, since that undercuts their
>political claims to have "always" been on, and derived from, this
>particular land.
It's not just political.... it's part of the oral histories and
creation stories of many of the Nations.
>> There are hundreds of Indian Nations in North America, each
>> with its own culture, language, and spiritual belief system. Many of
>> these Nations are very different from one another in their religious
>> traditions, and none of them describe their beliefs as shamanism.
>
>Depends on who you talk to or whose verbatim statements you read,
>though in some -- not all -- cases there may be an issue of trans-
>lation into English. Joe Green, speaking in English (and rather
>elegant English, too), a Paviotso Indian: "Indians were put on this
>earth with trees, plants, animals, and water, and the shaman gets
>his power from them", etc. Rosie Plummer, also Paviotso, uses the
>same word, as does Joel (no last name given) of the Dogrib group
>(North Woods Indian), almost all the Alaskan natives quoted, and
>some of the South Americans.
Of course Natives can and do use the word shaman when speaking in
English, or to an English speaking audience. But if you ask them
what their religion is.. I can pretty dang well gaurantee you they
won't say "shamanism". Which is the point of the article....
Shamanism just isn't the same thing as "Indian Religion" no matter how
you slice it.
>> Even
>> from a scholarly standpoint, few Native systems can be accurately
>> described as "shamanism" - the ecstatic trance-journey is simply not a
>> major part of most North American Indian cultures.
>
>See above, which is only a partial reckoning from this one source;
>others show up in other books on my shelves.
Sure, shamanic practices are part of some Native spiritual practices.
They're also a part of some Christian traditions. But Christianity
isn't really shamanism, either.
>> Although the teachings of these movements (New Age, '70's) may be
>> valid in their own right, they are neither traditional nor typical of
>> Indian beliefs, nor are they shamanic, as they rarely if ever stress
>> the ecstatic trance-journey as a central practice. Yet the movement
>> continues to misrepresent itself as both Indian and shamanism.
>
>Mostly the ones that got involved at that time with the "sacred" use
>of peyote and other hallucinogens, and those currently touting the
>use of the South American vine Ayahuasca, insisted on using the term,
>presumably because thanks to the drugs, they really *did* have
>"supernatural" (if not always ecstatic) journeys on which they met
>spirit beings and were sometimes taught songs and techniques.
Actually, those groups *can* claim to be shamanic.... I was refering
more to the Harley Reagan Swiftdeer and Sun Bear type crowds. And I
was being kind.
>> A "shaman" is a specialist and master of the ecstatic trance-journey,
>> not a synonym for tribal healer, holy person or medicine man.
>> "Shamanism" is the practice of ecstatic trance-journey, and the
>> typical beliefs and techniques that arise from and support it.
>> Shamanism is not a catch-all term for indigenous religion, earth-based
>> religions, spiritual healing, or beliefs in totems, animal guardians
>> or nature spirits. These misconceptions about shamanism are promoted
>> by both well-meaning and fraudulent teachers, books, periodicals and
>> web pages. They need to be corrected both for the preservation of
>> traditional Native American cultures, and for the advancement of
>> spiritual learning in the West.
>
>I think the situation is vastly more complex,
Of course it's more complex. Shamanism is complex. Cultural integrity
issues are complex. Spirituality is complex. Western culture is
complex. And the crossroads where they meet is DEFINITELY complex.
But the point of the article is simple.
Shamanism is not Native American Religion.
> given that good arguments
>can be made that the ecstatic trance-journey by itself is not sufficient
>to qualify a person as a shaman;
Of course it's not.... didn't I say that in there somewhere? Called
by the spirits, recognition by the culture, specific roles, etc etc
etc? But the ecstatic-trance journey remains the primary defining
characteristic.
> But here we see exactly the
>kind of diversity of definition I raised earlier: I find William's
>definition too simple, too undifferentiated from various kinds of
>hallucinatory experience, and barren of other elements that make
>shamanism what it is: spirit helpers, spirit-given song and ritual
>to be brought back for the benifit of the group, an expectation of and
>dedication to spirit-aided healing, and a strong tie to tribal land
>and a traditional way of living on it, however much that way may have
>been changed by modernity (snowmobiles and rifles instead of sledges
>and spears or bows, say).
>And others here undobutedly differ from my definition as well.
Maybe if you gave your definition it'd help a bit?
>Perhaps I am more of a "classicist", then; but at what point does
>neo-shamanism become so neo, and so divorced from its classic roots,
>as to cease to be shamanism at all?
Were these last two paragraphs actually in response to my article, or
did you just get off on a closing tangent? I lean towards strict
classical definitions... That's *why* I stress the importance of the
ecstatic-trance journey. If you think that's not the central core of
shamanic practice, then you're not using classical definitions.
Since neo-shamanism is *based* in the practice of ecstatic trance
journeys, I don't see what you're getting at.... the sort of loose
definitions you seem to be refering to aren't Neo-Shamanic, they are
New Age. It's a different but sometimes overlapping movement.
Starrhawke
*^v^*
P.n.Grata
"Starr`" <starr...@metista.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:3c197674...@flashnews.prodigy.net...
> Copyright Ā© 2000,2001 Victoria A. McElroy, All Rights Reserved.
> http://www.metista.com/starrhawke/Aint.html
>
> Shamanism: It Ain't Native American Religion!
CouldnĀ“t agree more...
-=Azathool=-
P.n.Grata
"Rocky" <ro...@pacific.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:u1k4qc1...@corp.supernews.com...
> From my perspective, a fundamental aspect of shamanism that
> tends to not be discussed is the difference between the imaginal
> and transpersonal nature of spirits and the huge importance of that
> difference.
Hmm. To be able to, there has to be shamans (the true ones) subscribing
to this here ng first of all, right? So where do we find someone
knowledgeable and shaman enough to even have a clue?
> doing so. It seems more scattered and nonsensical than ever,
> (confusion about NA religions and shamanism as prevalent as
> always)
Wooo... you just tell it as it is! How easy it is to only see the
"problem" instead of be part of the solution. Come to think of it, but
isnĀ“t being part of the solution something that comes with being a
shaman?
-=Azathool=-
Tarald
> Wooo... you just tell it as it is! How easy it is to only see the
> "problem" instead of be part of the solution. Come to think of it, but
> isnĀ“t being part of the solution something that comes with being a
> shaman?
Hi, I was appointed by nature to be a shaman. Had epilepsy in my youth and
recovered. Found out after reading Castaneda for some years, that this was a
token of the shaman (reading M. Eliade). Well, what the fuck. I may be a
holy man.
P.n.Grata
"Tarald" <tara...@online.no> skrev i meddelandet
news:bTHS7.531$KQ3....@news1.oke.nextra.no...
> >
> Hi, I was appointed by nature to be a shaman. Had epilepsy in my youth
and
> recovered. Found out after reading Castaneda for some years, that this
was a
> token of the shaman (reading M. Eliade). Well, what the fuck. I may be
a
> holy man.
>
Hi there, yourself... <smile>
So what do you have to say in this matter Rockyę talking about...
<quote previous post>
> From my perspective, a fundamental aspect of shamanism that tends to
not be
> discussed is the difference between the imaginal and transpersonal
nature of
> spirits and the huge importance of that difference.
</quote>
For myself, I just have to rest my opinion as I never was appointed by
anyone and therefore, per earlier definitions, can not become a shaman,
whether I would want to, or not <smile>
Now, Rocky likes to use them "big metaphysical words", very much like
what the proę usually do when they are around what they persieve to be
"the little people". So, being the simple person I am, I need a little
help from the initiated to really understand..
-=Azathool=-
Rocky
some basic conversation about what practitioners do. (Which I find much more
interesting than what they believe.) I'm surprised at how quickly you move
to the personal, derisive comments above. If my vocabulary does not suit
your particular personal taste, don't read my posts. There are lots of other
messages here which may be more on your level, whatever that is.
jelich
Rocky wrote:
While Azathool could have presented it better (without the
"holier than thou" ;-), you may have seen he has a point.
What does "imaginal and transpersonal" mean? I have a college
degree, am considered fairly well read, and I don't know what you
mean by the phrase (not the words, the phrase).
pees
Beth
P.n.Grata
> I'm surprised at how quickly you move
> to the personal, derisive comments above. If my vocabulary does not
> suit your particular personal taste, don't read my posts. There are
> lots of other messages here which may be more on your level,
> whatever that is.
>
<smile> Youęe right as always, Rocky. I shouldęe learned to stay
within my own level of understanding by now. :::Looks around::::
"Someone knows where the Brady Bunch Cabinę at?"
Now, again...
<quote from Rockyę previous post>
> the difference between the imaginal and transpersonal
> nature of spirits and the huge importance of that difference.
</quote>
my reply will be this...
Ahemm ...
There once was this farmer that went out into his backyard to dig up
some potatoes, that he later thought he would sell at the market in town
to get some money.
As he started out, he suddenly hear this voice that says:
-"Yo, farmer! What's the deal here, really. Here I am left all by myself
to grow amongst weed, and you not once come here to water me or
anything. But now, when I fully grown and ready to reap, you come here
with your tools to dig me up and sell me. Nah, Go away I say. And leave
me alone. I don't like you!"
The farmer twirled around with a surprised look in his face and found
himself staring in the face of his cow, who calmy glared back at
him. -"Did you say something?" he asked the cow. The cow who was busy
eating, didn't care to answer, but the farmers dog, that had followed
him, said: -"It wasn't the cow, stupid! It was the potatoe that told you
to go away and leave it alone, since you didn't care that much for it
anyway."
The farmer got mad when he heard the dog speak such harsh language, and
reached for his knife to cut down a branch from a tree nearby, which he
thought he would use to slap the dog with.
-"Hey, stop that!" The tree yelled. "How dare you cut down one of my
branches without asking, and use it as a bat. The branch added: -"And
put me down gently on the ground before you. Gently, I said, you hear?"
The overwhelmed farmer did as he was told and put the branch down on a
stone that laid in front of him.
-"Hey, what's this supposed to mean?" the stone cried out. "Get that
branch out of my face and get out of here. I was having a sunbath and a
good time until you came along and spoiled it all." By know the farmer
had had enough, and quickley he started to run back to his house.
On the way to the house he met a fisherman, who was on his way home
after work, carrying a fishnet on his back.
-"Now, what's the rush. Is there a fire or something," he asked the poor
farmer. The farmer stopped and told him what had happened at the
field...
-"First the potatoe told me to leave it alone, and then my dog said the
same. When I tried to bash the dog with a branch, the tree told me to
stop it and the branch told me to lay it down on the ground, when all of
the sudden the stone tells me to get the branch out of its face.. and
... and..."
-"Now, was that all," the fisherman responded. "I don't understand
what's there to get upset about."
-"Neither can I," said the fishnet. "Now tell me. Did you do what the
stone told you to and removed that branch?"
-"Now what was that?" the fisherman yealled out loud, and threw the
fishnet on the ground, then both men started to run as quickley as their
feet could carry them.
After a while they met a weaver, who was on his way to the market with a
bale of cloth.
-"Hohoo!! Now where are you two going in such a hasty manner. Stop and
catch your breath and tell me." The farmer told the weaver his story and
the fisherman added what the fishnet had said.
-"And what's the big deal about this...," the weaver asked. "I see
nothing wro..."
-"No, but I am sure, if it happened to you, you would also run" the bale
interrupted.
-"Help!" the veawer cried out, threw away the bale of cloth and ran
after the other two. After a while they came to a ford by the river.
There they saw a man who was taking a bath. He asked them:
-"What's up! Are you hunting dear or something?
The farmer told him about the potatoe, the dog, the tree, the branch,
and the stone. The fisherman added what the fishnet had said, and the
veawer told him about the cloth.
-"Is that all there is to tell," the man asked. "Is that really why you
come running like this?"
-"I guess you would to, if it happened to you." the river said. With a
yell, the man jumped out of the water, and started running to catch up
with the others.
After awhile they came to the village, and kept running all the way to
the Elders porch. A servant put a box on the ground for the Elder to sit
on, while he listened to the mens complaints.
-"I was out in the backyard to dig up some potatoes," the farmer said,
vividly gesticulating, "and then all of the sudden the potatoe told me
to leave it alone, and the dog agreed. The tree told me to let go of the
branch, and the branch told me to put it down gently, and the stone told
me to get the branch out of its face."
-"And my fishnet asked if the farmer had done what he was told." the
fisherman said.
-"My bale of cloth told me that I also would be running if it happened
to me," the veawer continued.
-"And that's what the river said to me said also," added the terrified
man, that had taken a bath.
The Elder listened patiently, while the men spoke. But he couldn't help
look a little harsh. Finaly he said to them,
-"No hear this. This is nothing but a lot of hogwash, what your telling
me! I strongly advice you all to return to your work, otherwise I will
have to punish you for disturbing the peace.
The men disappeared in a haste, and as the elder saw them walk away, he
said to himself,
-"This is just the kind of talk that upsets people and disturbs the
peace around here.
-"Yeah, isn't it just amazing!" the box replied. "Who has ever heard of
a potatoe that could talk."
------------------------
Ohh, btw.. before I go. Just for your info, Rocky. Whenever you refer to
"the above", please, keep a snippet of what you mean in your post. Can
really be a time saver you know, for those having a short memory base,
like me
Live well, stay happy and prosper <grin>
ę
Øuff said
-=Azathool=-
Rocky
> What does "imaginal and transpersonal" mean? I have a college
> degree, am considered fairly well read, and I don't know what you
> mean by the phrase (not the words, the phrase).
>
> pees
> Beth
>
Hi Beth,
I think my grammar was incorrect. I meant imaginal spirits and transpersonal
spirits, or the beliefs underlying the shamanism. The widely held imaginal
(structure?) of neoshamans produces a spiritual work that is radically
different from that of indigenous shamans who lived in a world filled with
transpersonal spirits. This difference is not discussed much, which I find
strange.
The difference plays out in many important ways but I think the most radical
difference between the two worlds is the general benevolence of neoshamanic,
imaginal spirits as opposed to the generally more dangerous transpersonal
spirits of the indigenous world. This seems to parallel somewhat, community
opinions about shamans themselves.
Interestingly, most neoshamans, at least the ones I'm familiar with,
sometimes speak of the spiritual world as if it is transpersonal but seem to
practice something that is much more imaginal.
Here's an example: I once did some work with a shaman, along with some
others. We entered into a transaction, or contract with a certain spirit of
great power. (This is quite common in indigenous shamanic work.) A woman
with whom I was working said she offered one of her fingers to the spirit in
exchange for something. I was surprised, and asked her if she understood
that somehow, sometime, she would lose a finger. She was surprised by my
concern and said that she didn't think she would REALLY lose a finger. She
explained that the transaction she made was symbolic, rather than an actual
giving away of her finger.
I haven't seen her for over ten years. I would sure like to know if she
still has all of her fingers!
Sing and dance!
Rocky
Crowfoot
starr...@metista.com (Starr`) wrote:
> I probably should have mentioned that the article I posted was written
> for a general audience, rather than an already knowledgable one --- so
> it is necessarily simplified a bit.
Understood.
> I wasn't really expecting to have
> to argue these points, but.... erm... ok, I guess. But if you want
> to explore this further, can you narrow it down to one point, or split
> it up in different threads?
I may have misread your intentions and rather lost sight of your
central point when I started to feel that NA attitudes on
shamanism and neo-shamanism were being cast as just another bunch of
opinions with no more weight than anybody else's. On closer reading,
I *think* that's not what you were saying, but only that
in weighing up such criticism we shouldn't imagine that NA critics
speak from the position of trying to preserve an organized religion
shared by all of them before any Whites showed up here.
I do get uncomfortable, though, when I see comments that can be read
as defenses erected to deflect or dismiss NA criticism of neo-
shamanism because shamanism isn't a codified religion among NA people,
so why should they have any right to criticize (or for that matter to
accept and bless as authentic in one way or another) anybody else's
neo-shamanism? As the deepest-rooted practioners of shamanic techniques
in North America, with developed and coherent mythologies behind those
techniques, what they have to say about neo-shamanism as it manifests
itself in America deserves a respectful hearing IMO, not the all-too-
common response that NA people don't know anything more than anybody
else about this so they should just shut up and let everybody get on
with doing whatever they feel like doing and calling themselves
shamans.
WHICH IS NOT TO SAY that you wrote in that vein; but I have seen your
argument linked to just that sort of defensiveness, and it set me off.
> many indigenous cultures also object
> to the whole western habit of cross-cultural categorizations like
> "shaman". It tends to force very different tribal peoples into
> western cookie cutters.
Well, see, I have a problem with "many indigenous cultures" holding
any opinion in concert. Different folks in different tribes and
groups hold widely varying opinions on all of these questions. Many
members of these groups may feel this way, yes; but many others feel
quite differently, and some may feel both ways, depending on who they
are talking to and who they are talking about in a given situation.
> why would members of another culture have any
> right to say what I am doing in regards to my own and my people's
> belief system, so long as I'm not appropriating theirs?
I'm only speaking of attitudes toward outright appropriation, of which
there is a good deal in the more commercialized areas of neo-shamanism.
The commercializers understand very well that NA techniques and concepts
of shamanism serve as signs of authenticity to naive students, no matter
how the commercial "shaman" (I am thinking particularly of Whites who
set up "schools" of NA shamanism) came by them, but there is much dis-
cussion among Indian people about private non-Native practitioners as
well. Some of it is approving, by the way, and generous, saying that
if non-Natives can learn to be better citizens of the land by adopt-
ing and adapting neo-shamanic ideas with an NA flavor, good, they
should go ahead and do that, it can only benifit everyone; but this
is, so far as I can judge, a minority opinion.
> >Would you
> >also include such things as, say, Hassidic ecstacies
>
> Nope -- I'm refering to "most modern uses of the word shamanism".
> Yes, ecstatic trance journeys are found in many syncretic religions,
> and in Jewish traditions, along with most other religious traditions,
But if that's the core of shamanism, then how are such religions not
shamanic? What I was getting at here is that the ecstatic trance journey
is not a *sufficient* description of shamanism to distinguish it from
many other mystical practices. That's why my definition of shamanism is
made up of this *plus* other central elements -- animal spirits and
spirit helpers, gifts to the journeying shaman of songs and healing
proceedures to be used by him or her alone, etc.
> Shamanism just isn't the same thing as "Indian Religion" no matter how
> you slice it.
Agreed. But it is part of the the traditional religion of many Indian
peoples.
> >> from a scholarly standpoint, few Native systems can be accurately
> >> described as "shamanism" - the ecstatic trance-journey is simply not a
> >> major part of most North American Indian cultures.
From what I've read, it was very common (though it is of course much
less so now), particularly among plains, North woods, and North
Coast groups.
>Called
> by the spirits, recognition by the culture, specific roles, etc etc
> etc? But the ecstatic-trance journey remains the primary defining
> characteristic.
Necessary, yes, but not sufficient, in my view.
> >other elements that make
> >shamanism what it is: spirit helpers, spirit-given song and ritual
> >to be brought back for the benifit of the group, an expectation of and
> >dedication to spirit-aided healing, and a strong tie to tribal land
> >and a traditional way of living on it, however much that way may have
> >been changed by modernity.
Those elements mean shamanism to me, not just the trance journey, or
the trance journey plus borrowings from other traditions.
> >Perhaps I am more of a "classicist", then; but at what point does
> >neo-shamanism become so neo, and so divorced from its classic roots,
> >as to cease to be shamanism at all?
>
> Were these last two paragraphs actually in response to my article, or
> did you just get off on a closing tangent?
Oh, I as rambling by then, just thinking about how people come to have
different views of these things.
>I lean towards strict
> classical definitions... That's *why* I stress the importance of the
> ecstatic-trance journey. If you think that's not the central core of
> shamanic practice, then you're not using classical definitions.
It is the core, but not the whole. A person who has ecstatic trance
journeys, by whatever means, isn't a shaman just by virtue of that
experience or ability, to my way of thinking. Does a couple of LSD
trips make a person a shaman? I can't believe you think so, but your
concentrating so centrally on the journey makes me wonder. I am
arguing for a rather more demanding and detailed requirement for a
person to call himself or herself a shaman.
I don't call myself that. Having no traditional community that supports
shamanism as a traditional reality, not being a healer of or by means
of spirits, I remain, by my own definition, a shamanist, not a shaman. I
think the distinction is an important and useful one.
--
Crow
Crowfoot
Daya Li <day...@bgfoot.com> wrote:
> In article <9vejre$db8$1...@sloth.swcp.com>, Crowfoot <suz...@swcp.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Would you also include such things as, say, Hassidic ecstacies in the
> > Jewish tradition (not a tradition I am deeply familiar with myself,
> > but I do know a little abut it)?
> >
>
> As the Dharma Duelling Hebreo-Pagan, I will say, yes. Judaism does have
> such a tradtion: The forty days on Sinai. The Prophets and their
> Visions/Dreams: Daniel for example. Dreaming was quite improtant to the
> Hebrew People - (still is for that) the number 40 plays a very
> important role in the History of the Hebrews, if you read closely.
>
> The Chasidim chant and sway to enter the trance/ecstatic state similar
> to the Northern European Singing Journeys and the Sufi mystic tradition
> via Sabatai Zevi, the 'heretic'
Thanks, very informative. I thought I remembered something, there . . .
So when a Chasid goes into such a trance state, "where" does he go?
That is, are we to infer that a spirit "journey" is involved,
including encounters with spirit beings, or is it more a matter of
a form of "being in the music" for the duration of the chanting?
And where would the more extreme forms of Christian practice fit --
the people who fall down in fits and "speak in tongues" during
sessions of group singing?
To me, there are ecstatic elements to many religions, but without
the journey and the spiritual encounters therein, I don't see how
that can be considered any form of shamanism. Getting back to what
Starr was saying about this -- I think that ecstacy without journey
and encounter is not shamanism, it's just a sort of group (or indi-
vidual, depending on the circumstances) high, very delightful but
essentially self-contained. OTOH, one who closes his eyes and says
"Ah, here are my power animals and they're telling me to do a smudge
session to cure you of your condition" -- that is, someone who
claims the effects of an ecstatic trance supposed journey
without the actual ecstatic trance part) is not a shaman either.
That's where I am right now, at any rate.
--
Crow
Joseph B. Wilson
When we use the word ECSTASY in relation to shamanism, i.e.,
"ecstatic trance" or "shamanic ecstasy" it has the specific technical
meaning used by Eliade and anthropologists, meaning "out of place" or
"out of body", and refering specifically to the journey done in
trance. Yes, when writing we do sometimes shorten it to just ecstasy,
but that's assuming that the people we're talking to are also equally
educated.
It does not refer to just any trance, or to the common meaning of
Intense joy or delight, or even the mystical meaning of trance,
frenzy, or rapture associated with mystic or prophetic exaltation.
While many religions have trance states that encompass these latter
states of mind, that does not make them shamanic. It's only the
technical "ek-sta" out of place/body that has that meaning.
Unless you're talking about new age believers who think they can make
words mean whatever they want them to and still have other people
understand.
Joseph B. Wilson
http://www.metista.com
Rocky
> It does not refer to just any trance, or to the common meaning of
> Intense joy or delight, or even the mystical meaning of trance,
> frenzy, or rapture associated with mystic or prophetic exaltation.
> While many religions have trance states that encompass these latter
> states of mind, that does not make them shamanic. It's only the
> technical "ek-sta" out of place/body that has that meaning.
Yes, Joseph!
And those altered states/experiences common to so many religious practices
lack the shamanic element of * intention. * When I sat in the ashram with
Muktananda, chanting all day, I entered blissful, ecstatic states with no
intention to *use* the experience for change in consensual reality, with the
possible exception of having a better life myself.
Common shamanic inebriants go both ways too. I use one in particular to
bring healing or change to another. But, like all psychoactive substances it
can be used for recreation, just to feel good, etc.
>
> Unless you're talking about new age believers who think they can make
> words mean whatever they want them to and still have other people
> understand.
which , if I might add, renders discussion impossible.
Best wishes,
Rocky
Ogi Vidol
only scanned through several posts (and may have missed important
particulars). First, every religion has its period of first
impression. The neo-shamanistic movement is no exception. This
neither removes the Native American's right to rebuke it, nor removes
validity from the neo-shamanist movement. A parallel could be drawn
to early Christianity: the Jews were within their rights to criticize
Christianity but that did not remove Christianity's legitimacy as a
movement (and later, as a full religion).
Second, the word "Shaman" is, in a purist sense, an anthropologic
term...a scientific definition (much like "rain" refers to a certain
type of precipitation). Simple definitional analysis - as long as you
are within the strictures of the definition you can lay claim to its
title.
Personally, I've found that usually titles and definitions don't fit
quite right. I also have problems with anyone decrying my
spirituality as invalid. Then again, I've seen people who exchange
"spiritual practices" like trading cards and put just as much feeling
into them, so I can understand harsh feelings.
Crowfoot <suz...@swcp.com> wrote in message news:<9vk811$87r$1...@sloth.swcp.com>...
Crowfoot
Wilson <be...@metista.com> wrote:
Just my point, Joseph; thankyou for the elucidation.
--
Crow
Crowfoot
Daya Li <day...@bgfoot.com> wrote:
> In article <9vlb4i$993$1...@sloth.swcp.com>, Crowfoot <suz...@swcp.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Getting back to what Starr was saying about this -- I think that
> > ecstacy without journey and encounter is not shamanism, it's just a
> > sort of group (or indi- vidual, depending on the circumstances) high,
> > very delightful but essentially self-contained. OTOH, one who closes
> > his eyes and says "Ah, here are my power animals and they're telling
> > me to do a smudge session to cure you of your condition" -- that is,
> > someone who claims the effects of an ecstatic trance supposed journey
> > without the actual ecstatic trance part) is not a shaman either.
>
> I agree with this sentiment. I hve been to too many Circles where not a
> thing has been raised or encountered. yet, everyone creams their jeans
> over the experience...
Exactly why I have always fought shy of such group "practice". I
tried a few and couldn't stand the high baloney-level. Life is too
short; when I want dramatic performance I go to the theatre.
--
Crow
hY
> > I agree with this sentiment. I hve been to too many Circles where not a
> > thing has been raised or encountered. yet, everyone creams their jeans
> > over the experience...
>
> Exactly why I have always fought shy of such group "practice". I
> tried a few and couldn't stand the high baloney-level. Life is too
> short; when I want dramatic performance I go to the theatre.
Sometimes, it is your time to experience, and sometimes it is anothers
turn. Give and take. Sometimes you need to cry, and be held, and the
gods speak to you. Then sometimes, you feel nothing yet, the person
next to you, has had some grand revelation.
It's not just the energy, it is the entire process, the words, the
show, the clicking together of ideas, how you were treated before
hand, the thoughts that you had in your head when you heard certain
words spoken to you, during a moment of quiet.
Starr`
Ok, now I'm totally confused, Crow...
Exactly *what* is your argument with my posts?
Puzzled,
StarrHawke
*^v^*
Starr`
>I may have misread your intentions and rather lost sight of your
>central point when I started to feel that NA attitudes on
>shamanism and neo-shamanism were being cast as just another bunch of
>opinions with no more weight than anybody else's.
My intent with "Shamanism: It Aint..." is pretty simple, and clearly
stated in the title : The word shamanism is not a synonym for Native
American religious beliefs. Period.
I'm very vocal about cultural appropriation, and spend a lot of time
and effort trying to help folks understand the complex issues involved
-- so much so that a lot of folks groan when they see me start
posting.
But I am a total loss as to why you think Native American opinions on
non-Native American shamanism or neo-shamanism should hold more weight
than anyone else's. I take informed Lakota opinions on Lakota
spirituality as authoritative. Same goes for Tsalagi, Crow, etc etc.
But unless the forms of shamanism or neo-shamanism you're refering to
includes Native American beliefs.. no.. their opinions hold no more
weight than those of a Catholic priest.
> On closer reading,
>I *think* that's not what you were saying, but only that
>in weighing up such criticism we shouldn't imagine that NA critics
>speak from the position of trying to preserve an organized religion
>shared by all of them before any Whites showed up here.
I don't really know what you meant here.... if it's important, please
clarify.
Frankly I think you need to re-read the article without your
prejudiced expectations in place.
>I do get uncomfortable, though, when I see comments that can be read
>as defenses erected to deflect or dismiss NA criticism of neo-
>shamanism because shamanism isn't a codified religion among NA people,
>so why should they have any right to criticize (or for that matter to
>accept and bless as authentic in one way or another) anybody else's
>neo-shamanism?
Native Americans have a right to criticise those groups who present
themselves as native or psuedo-native -- whether it is called
neo-shamanism or something else is irrelevant.
It sounds to me like you're promoting the stereotype of Native
Americans as some sort of enlightened keepers of spiritual truths,
able to approve or disprove the spiritual paths of others...
Shamanism ISNT NATIVE AMERICAN RELIGION ... codified or not.
Saying so neither defends nor condemns cultural appropriation.
<clip>
I wrote:
>> many indigenous cultures also object
>> to the whole western habit of cross-cultural categorizations like
>> "shaman". It tends to force very different tribal peoples into
>> western cookie cutters.
you responded:
>Well, see, I have a problem with "many indigenous cultures" holding
>any opinion in concert. I see.. you can say that many Indians call themse
>Different folks in different tribes and
>groups hold widely varying opinions on all of these questions. Many
>members of these groups may feel this way, yes; but many others feel
>quite differently, and some may feel both ways, depending on who they
>are talking to and who they are talking about in a given situation.
Excuse me.. but quoting from my own post... which you are responding
to... I wrote:
<QUOTE>
All Natives aren't the same. There are different attitudes in
different parts of the country, affected by any number of things,
including how much contact the particular Nation has had with the more
blatant frauds and liars.
<UNQUOTE>
Is there a point to repeating everything I'm saying and acting like
you're trying to educate me on it?
>> Nope -- I'm refering to "most modern uses of the word shamanism".
>> Yes, ecstatic trance journeys are found in many syncretic religions,
>> and in Jewish traditions, along with most other religious traditions,
>
>But if that's the core of shamanism, then how are such religions not
>shamanic?
I didn't say they are not shamanic.... some of them are. You're
distorting my words, and not quoting enough for me to clarify them.
What I wrote was:
<QUOTE>
>> most modern uses of the word "shamanism" refer to
>> trance-journey practices used within a religion, rather than to a
>> religion itself.
<UNQUOTE>
For a religion to actually be a form of shamanism... the role of a
shaman and shamanic practices would have to be central to its beliefs
and practices. That seems like a fine point of distinction, I know..
and it's not one I was originally trying to make, but there it is.
>>Called
>> by the spirits, recognition by the culture, specific roles, etc etc
>> etc? But the ecstatic-trance journey remains the primary defining
>> characteristic.
>
>Necessary, yes, but not sufficient, in my view.
Do you understand what "primary defining characteristic" means?
It doesn't exclude the other elements you mention, of helping spirits,
a community acknowledged role, etc. It's just the first thing to look
for when trying to determine if something is a form of shamanism.
>>I lean towards strict
>> classical definitions... That's *why* I stress the importance of the
>> ecstatic-trance journey. If you think that's not the central core of
>> shamanic practice, then you're not using classical definitions.
>
>It is the core, but not the whole. A person who has ecstatic trance
>journeys, by whatever means, isn't a shaman just by virtue of that
>experience or ability, to my way of thinking.
And, again.. I never said it did. I don't object to your statements..
in fact I agree with them. I do object to your distortion of what
I've said.
> Does a couple of LSD
>trips make a person a shaman? I can't believe you think so, but your
>concentrating so centrally on the journey makes me wonder. I am
>arguing for a rather more demanding and detailed requirement for a
>person to call himself or herself a shaman.
<shakes head>
Is it just me, or does it seem like Crow is talking to someone else?
>I don't call myself that. Having no traditional community that supports
>shamanism as a traditional reality, not being a healer of or by means
>of spirits, I remain, by my own definition, a shamanist, not a shaman. I
>think the distinction is an important and useful one.
Ummmm.. I supported you in that distinction in an earlier thread, Crow
I'm just not getting this whole exchange.
StarrHawke
*^v^*
http://www.metista.com/
tamara
Buttercup hears a familiar voice asking this question::::
>From: "P.n.Grata"
>"Someone knows where the Brady Bunch CabinĀ“s at?"
::::Buttercup's eyes pop wide open from her trance state, as she delivers this
inspired message to Azathool:::
"Look closely my friend, ......deep into the eyes.....deep, deep, deep into the
eyes of Schussler Cy'bog.....and there my friend, you will find the obscure
mystery .....and your quest for your cabin will be solved"
*teehee*
Buttercup......*just passing through, with a little smile ; )*
Crowfoot
starr...@metista.com (Starr`) wrote:
Sorry, I don't know how to make it any clearer . . . except that I
read your posts as singling out the trance-journey as the single,
central, sufficient quality of shamanic practice. I'm saying that
*any* kind of trance experience does not qualify as shamanism, and
that trance experience without the community-based elements that
make the trance-journey shamanic -- encounters with spirit-beings
who teach the journeying soul songs and rituals to bring back to
the community for healing or other helpful purpose -- is not shamanism.
I think your definition of shamanism is too broad, and includes (as it
stands, as I read it) experiences that I exclude, most of them entirely
personal hallucinatory passages that fit the experiencer to do nothing
much other than exclaim about how really out of this world it was out
there, out of this world . . . You can be out of this world without
being in the shamanic dimensions that community healers and
practitioners go to for help for their group members, IMO; and being
there does not make you a shaman.
Maybe I misunderstand you here, but I often come across claims for a
basically rootless shamanism that is actually only personal explor-
ation, which I feel should be distinguished from shamanic journeying on
behalf of members of one's community. I don't think you recognize any
such distinction, and I am trying to explain how that creates a
difference between your ideas of what a shaman is and mine.
It's not a biggie, clearly; we seem to have a difference of opinion,
that's all. Not to worry.
--
Crow
Starr`
>Sorry, I don't know how to make it any clearer . . . except that I
>read your posts as singling out the trance-journey as the single,
>central, sufficient quality of shamanic practice.
I have never said the ecstatic trance-journey is the ONLY element of
shamanic practice. Please stop suggesting that I have.
Oddly, you *still* don't seem to grasp what I mean by "ecstatic
trance-journey", even though you just agreed with Joseph on the
definition.
The ecstatic trance-journey is not just "any old trance". It is the
trance experience which is SPECIFIC to shamanism. It is what makes
shamanism different from other mystical practices.. it is the trance
in which a shaman or shamanist journeys into the otherworlds, contacts
their helper spirits, works on behalf of the community, etc etc.
Honestly.. I have to ask if you are so caught up in your own opinions
that you are just incapable of reading what you're responding to....
or if you're just trying to bait me.
<clip>
>I think your definition of shamanism is too broad,
I don't believe I've actually posted my definition of shamanism for a
good long while now...... so I really don't know what you're arguing
with. But this is the FIRST time anyone has ever accused my
definitions of being "too broad!"
>Maybe I misunderstand you here, but I often come across claims for a
>basically rootless shamanism that is actually only personal explor-
>ation, which I feel should be distinguished from shamanic journeying on
>behalf of members of one's community. I don't think you recognize any
>such distinction, and I am trying to explain how that creates a
>difference between your ideas of what a shaman is and mine.
If you would stop arguing, and actually read what I've been saying,
you might realize that the disagreement is entirely in your head.
I do suggest you go back and re-read the article. You can find it at
http://www.metista.com/starrhawke/Aint.html
Though it does not contain a concise definition of shamanism ( and is
not intended to) I think it gives a pretty good overview.
>It's not a biggie, clearly; we seem to have a difference of opinion,
>that's all. Not to worry.
What annoys me is that you keep misrepresenting what I've written, and
misrepresenting it so badly that it is the opposite of the view I've
been posting on this newsgroup and elsewhere for 5+ years.... It is an
opinion that has continually gotten me branded as narrow-minded,
overly-intellectual, and a lot of other not-so-nice things.... I must
say, your impression of me is unique, if nothing else......
Starrhawke
*^v^*
http://www.metista.com/
Joseph B. Wilson
You obviously misread Starr's post, and read into it things that were
not there. Perhaps if you re-read it, and maybe even read some of her
other articles (and maybe even some of mine) from
http://www.metista.com/shamanism/articles.htm you would be more clear
on her position, and on mine.
I was astonished that you agreed with me, when what I was doing was
clarifying OUR definition (notice the similar email addresses that
Starr and I have, and the identical URL) yet continued to argue with
her.
Another CONSERVATIVE voice from a.r.s.
Joseph B Wilson
http://www.metista.com
Crowfoot
are bound to occur. Every time you wrote "ecstatic trance journey" I
read "ecstatic trance journey", not "the trance in which a shamn or
standing of your definition that was too broad! Sorry to have upset you
about this -- I worked at one time in a drug-treatment program, and I
heard and read at that time about a whole lot of ecstatic trances and
"trips" that had nothing to do with shamanism; so I'm maybe more in-
sistent about clarifying to the point of (perhaps) pedantry what makes
the difference between that and a shamanistic journey than most other
folks.
Of course, you're right -- we've been talking about the same thing,
only your use of the term has been more inclusive than mine. I
certainly never intended to misrepresent your position, and if I have
inadvertantly done so, I apologize.
In article <3c219f9b...@flashnews.prodigy.net>,
starr...@metista.com (Starr`) wrote:
--
Crow
Crowfoot
Daya Li <day...@bgfoot.com> wrote:
> In article <9vp2kh$nbv$2...@sloth.swcp.com>, Crowfoot <suz...@swcp.com>
> I am an actor. sometimes, nothing happens there, either... ;-.P
>
> HAPPY YULE
Too true, friend! Thanks for the laugh.
--
Crow