People these days hate labels. Perhaps it is because the popular philosophy that the entire universe really is here to simply provide anything one desires, that "intention" drives all magic and reality is nothing more than a construct of our own perceptions has become so prevalent and ingrained in our current culture, itself built upon the back of white entitlement and supremacy (which, in turn was built on the backs of slaves and oppressed peoples, lest we forget) that now people honestly think that a word can mean anything they want it to. Perhaps it can, but just because I call a viper a "kitten" doesn't make it safe to pet. So, I am prepared to piss a few people off, as I always do, and they are just gonna have to deal with it. To everyone else, take from it what you can and I hope that whether we agree or not you find yourself with a fuller understanding or at least a sliver of knowledge you did not have before. Today I am to explain in the simplest possible terms what is and is NOT a "shaman"
Linguistically it probably originates among the aboriginals of north-west Asia but was widely applied to the spiritual workers and practices of many indigenous peoples. This the concept of "shamanism" was born out of anthropological necessity for a term to describe a certain family of practical spiritual traditions. Nothing more, nothing less. The people CALLED "shamans" were called many other things among their own people and the spiritual principles and technologies employed by these individuals, as well as the process by which they came to learn and use these could be HIGHLY divergent from one group to the next.
In short, shamanism and the character of the shaman is nothing but a western construct for describing indigenous spirituality. It does not mean that all indigenous peoples had the same beliefs or practices, just that we didn't have the time nor inclination to fully understand them so we lumped them all into one category and called it a day. Thus we have today many divergent concepts of what it is to practice shamanism and many people who consider themselves devout followers foaming at the mouth to defend their individual conceptualization thereof. The only logical conclusion is that we either start calling all the divergent practices of each separate culture by the names they were originally called by the original people who practiced them (not bloody likely) or we simply agree on a broader definition which does not offend any of the divergent groups yet still accurately describes the whole community.
The popular definition of "shaman" is "a person on an ecstatic spiritual journey" which sounds like such delightful fun, opens the floor to positively anyone who wants to hop on the ride and, most importantly, has an underlying implication of the inherent use of psychoactive substances. Well, there are a number of problems with this definition and I am about to break out the helmet and riding crop so brace yourselves for bullet point time.
I think that got the major points out of the way. After all, we don't want to be too specific now do we? So back to the definition. If a shaman is not someone who uses drugs to have a good time and talk to spirits then what the hell is it? I keep saying, shamans are chosen, shamanism is a vocation, we are defined by our selection for a task and judged by whether or not we perform it. A shaman must undergo initiation and while the details of each tradition vary there is a fairly universal process which involves distinct steps of calling, crisis, liminality, epiphany and re-integration. This process may or may not take place where mentors and guides are available as they usually were within indigenous cultures. However, it is a natural process and one which can happen to anyone, modern psychology simply calls it "onset" usually of a schizoid disorder of some sort. I myself have been diagnosed as schizoaffective, but then even believing that metaphysical forces exist is enough to get you considered for schizotypical disorder, and double so if you actually think you possess any sort of powers. Oddly enough (or perhaps not so oddly at all) most cultures who had shamans also held that if a person was "called" to become a shaman but did not follow through with initiation they would go insane. I always enjoyed contemplation of that particular conundrum. Perhaps there would be less "crazy" people if we had a society which recognized shamans for what they are rather than branding them and putting them on psychoactive "medications" instead.
I said shamans are defined by their selection and judged by their actions. The Spirit chooses the shaman. Initiation is the first step in showing that you embrace the title. After that, it is all about how well you do your job, and Spirit is always watching. It is not as much a matter of good vs bad, reward and punishment as much as it is one of guidance by Spirit toward what you need to do. Sometimes it gets difficult, even scary, but it is up to us to see and interpret the signs and then to take the necessary actions. If you see a stop sign and run it anyway, the wreck and ticket are your own fault, the Spirit is not required to put its foot on the break, you are. Karma works the same way with shamans. We can heal or hurt or offer nothing more than advice, but whatever we do is in accordance with Spirit. Doing nothing at all is simply facilitating the dominant power. When the dominant power is evil, doing nothing is still doing evil. Morality is not "black or white" for the shaman. Vocations are always about actions. The carpenter swings his hammer and the soldier shoots his gun. Creation and destruction are BOTH within our domain. A shaman must perform a function within the community and that function is to be an intermediary between the seen and unseen, an ambassador between worlds. It is NOT an inherent part of that function that the shaman serves without compensation. It is customary in most cultures which employ shamans that they be tended to by the community or provided gifts of appreciation for their services, even when the results were not what was desired. A shaman is an important and respected figure, not a dancing monkey or manservant. Shamans are healers, counselors, mediums and even enforcers of stern justice. If you will only look deeper you will find that there are many types of shamans from cultures all over the world such as the "wicasa wanagi" of the Lakota who uses hides, stones and bones to channel natures powers, the "yerberos" of South America who work with plants and plant spirits, the "wisi mang" of Obeah who exorcises troublesome spirits or any of the plethora of other shamans and subsets of shaman each with their own specialized skills and techniques.
On a somewhat more personal and subject specific note, not all hoodoos are shamans, but some are. We can work roots, stones, bones, words (ie psalms) or waters. Some are "gifted seers" while others are "conjurers" and some only do works of kindness while others are known for laying tricks. Just as the "wicasa wakan" the spiritual leader of the Lakota must also have his heyoka, coyote medicine person who plays tricks and acts out at important ceremonies, so too are we all necessary to the balance. I think if we will only listen to our own true calling, if we will allow the Spirit to fill us and guide us perhaps we could all do our part to create a better and more balanced world.
"matikuye oyasin" by all our relations, thank you for reading.
Linguistically it probably originates among the aboriginals of north-west Asia but was widely applied to the spiritual workers and practices of many indigenous peoples. This the concept of "shamanism" was born out of anthropological necessity for a term to describe a certain family of practical spiritual traditions. Nothing more, nothing less. The people CALLED "shamans" were called many other things among their own people and the spiritual principles and technologies employed by these individuals, as well as the process by which they came to learn and use these could be HIGHLY divergent from one group to the next.
In short, shamanism and the character of the shaman is nothing but a western construct for describing indigenous spirituality. It does not mean that all indigenous peoples had the same beliefs or practices, just that we didn't have the time nor inclination to fully understand them so we lumped them all into one category and called it a day. Thus we have today many divergent concepts of what it is to practice shamanism and many people who consider themselves devout followers foaming at the mouth to defend their individual conceptualization thereof. The only logical conclusion is that we either start calling all the divergent practices of each separate culture by the names they were originally called by the original people who practiced them (not bloody likely) or we simply agree on a broader definition which does not offend any of the divergent groups yet still accurately describes the whole community.
The popular definition of "shaman" is "a person on an ecstatic spiritual journey" which sounds like such delightful fun, opens the floor to positively anyone who wants to hop on the ride and, most importantly, has an underlying implication of the inherent use of psychoactive substances. Well, there are a number of problems with this definition and I am about to break out the helmet and riding crop so brace yourselves for bullet point time.
- NOT EVERYONE CAN BE A SHAMAN!- this is the most important point of all and i am not going to spare anyone's precious feelings by making other points first because we need to squash this bug right out of the gate. In every single culture (aside from the white culture of appropriation) which has or had people called "shamans" by everyone else the spiritual worker was CHOSEN by some process or other, be it birth, oracle, divine intervention or what have you. One does not simply choose to be a shaman. It is not a religion one can convert to. It is a vocation which permeates every aspect of a person's life, one which carries with it an implicit duty to both the community and the spiritual forces surrounding them. There is nothing romantic about it. It is work.
- ALL SHAMANS DO NOT USE DRUGS!- I am absolutely sick of this. Many of the indigenous cults which used psychoactive substances for their spiritual practice were just that, cults.By its classic definition a "cult" is a religious body which uphold beliefs and practices which are atypical of the prevailing zeitgeist. That's "spirit of the culture at a particular time and place" for the layperson. Yes, the use of psychoactive components was typical of SOME shamans in certain cultures but certainly not ALL of them. This notion is exceptionally offensive because I have heard with my own ears people claim that shamans "got all their gods from stuff they saw while trippin'!" Those "psychoactive substances" for a great many of them in North and South America for instance were more often than not simple "nicotiana rustica" aka tobacco, of a non-GMO variety at that and something the culture now widely abuses without a second thought. How many of you smokers commune with spirits when you smoke a cigarette? I assure you, the shamanic experience is not based on drugs, only occasionally facilitated by them and, even then, not always strong ones The fact that some Lapps drank reindeer piss to trip on amanita muscaria without getting sick did not make every one who did it a shaman either. As Freud said "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" and sometimes people do drugs just because it is fun.
- SHAMANISM IS NOT INHERENTLY "ECSTATIC"- first off, little side note, I have already said "shamanism" is a vocation, not a religion, so the word itself is a bit overstated. It is like saying "carpenterism" or "electritionism" since hammering a nail does not make you a carpenter and changing a light bulb does not make you a plumber practicing meditation or even communing with spirits in nature does not make you a shaman.One can practice indigenous spirituality or what has been called "bioregional animism" without being a shaman, got it? Good. Now, shamans have been found in many cultures using many techniques to ply their trade. I don't know about you but fasting for a week, digging my own grave and sitting in it all day and night for an indeterminant amount of time like the Lakota does not sound like a particularly "ecstatic" experience to me. The counter to this term ia "ascetic" and that seems much more fitting don't you think? The woodland tribes on the other hand held ceremonies abased around their "black drink" a brew of yaupon holly containing 5x the caffeine of espresso and dancing until dawn sounds a little more like it, but not so much the vomiting, also, this ceremony isn't exclusive to shamans.
I think that got the major points out of the way. After all, we don't want to be too specific now do we? So back to the definition. If a shaman is not someone who uses drugs to have a good time and talk to spirits then what the hell is it? I keep saying, shamans are chosen, shamanism is a vocation, we are defined by our selection for a task and judged by whether or not we perform it. A shaman must undergo initiation and while the details of each tradition vary there is a fairly universal process which involves distinct steps of calling, crisis, liminality, epiphany and re-integration. This process may or may not take place where mentors and guides are available as they usually were within indigenous cultures. However, it is a natural process and one which can happen to anyone, modern psychology simply calls it "onset" usually of a schizoid disorder of some sort. I myself have been diagnosed as schizoaffective, but then even believing that metaphysical forces exist is enough to get you considered for schizotypical disorder, and double so if you actually think you possess any sort of powers. Oddly enough (or perhaps not so oddly at all) most cultures who had shamans also held that if a person was "called" to become a shaman but did not follow through with initiation they would go insane. I always enjoyed contemplation of that particular conundrum. Perhaps there would be less "crazy" people if we had a society which recognized shamans for what they are rather than branding them and putting them on psychoactive "medications" instead.
I said shamans are defined by their selection and judged by their actions. The Spirit chooses the shaman. Initiation is the first step in showing that you embrace the title. After that, it is all about how well you do your job, and Spirit is always watching. It is not as much a matter of good vs bad, reward and punishment as much as it is one of guidance by Spirit toward what you need to do. Sometimes it gets difficult, even scary, but it is up to us to see and interpret the signs and then to take the necessary actions. If you see a stop sign and run it anyway, the wreck and ticket are your own fault, the Spirit is not required to put its foot on the break, you are. Karma works the same way with shamans. We can heal or hurt or offer nothing more than advice, but whatever we do is in accordance with Spirit. Doing nothing at all is simply facilitating the dominant power. When the dominant power is evil, doing nothing is still doing evil. Morality is not "black or white" for the shaman. Vocations are always about actions. The carpenter swings his hammer and the soldier shoots his gun. Creation and destruction are BOTH within our domain. A shaman must perform a function within the community and that function is to be an intermediary between the seen and unseen, an ambassador between worlds. It is NOT an inherent part of that function that the shaman serves without compensation. It is customary in most cultures which employ shamans that they be tended to by the community or provided gifts of appreciation for their services, even when the results were not what was desired. A shaman is an important and respected figure, not a dancing monkey or manservant. Shamans are healers, counselors, mediums and even enforcers of stern justice. If you will only look deeper you will find that there are many types of shamans from cultures all over the world such as the "wicasa wanagi" of the Lakota who uses hides, stones and bones to channel natures powers, the "yerberos" of South America who work with plants and plant spirits, the "wisi mang" of Obeah who exorcises troublesome spirits or any of the plethora of other shamans and subsets of shaman each with their own specialized skills and techniques.
On a somewhat more personal and subject specific note, not all hoodoos are shamans, but some are. We can work roots, stones, bones, words (ie psalms) or waters. Some are "gifted seers" while others are "conjurers" and some only do works of kindness while others are known for laying tricks. Just as the "wicasa wakan" the spiritual leader of the Lakota must also have his heyoka, coyote medicine person who plays tricks and acts out at important ceremonies, so too are we all necessary to the balance. I think if we will only listen to our own true calling, if we will allow the Spirit to fill us and guide us perhaps we could all do our part to create a better and more balanced world.
"matikuye oyasin" by all our relations, thank you for reading.
Comments
Post a Comment