In the Shadow of the Shadow of the Shaman

[ravan]

The other day, I pulled the book "In The Shadow of the Shaman" off of my shelf, and flipped though it. Boy, what a lot of newage witchcrap! It incorporated a lot of newage crystal stuff, pseudo native american drivel, and kabbalistic references into a basic guide for mediation! Being unwilling to just criticize and run, I've decided to spew my ruminations on the subject.

A true shaman is both a seeker, and a guide, for experiences, not tables of correspondances of plants, animals, and "elements". Shamans have their "totem" (or spirit) animal(s) (mythical or otherwise) melded into their very soul. Many have had these beings as their only true friends for many years.

Shamans do not say to themselves one day "Oh, I think I'll study shamanism", and pick out a nifty neato spirit animal. They discover the affinity, and it creeps into every facet of their life and identity, in spite of the best efforts of our society (and the psychological profession) to stop it. Often the affinity develops after a traumatic incident, usually in childhood, that cuts the person off for a time from the "ordinary" and "normal" interactions and noise of our culture. Then the person is able to listen to the whisper of the wild, the call of the sky, the burbling of the sea, or the voiceless hum of the stars themselves that lurks beneath the surface of our world. In a way, the shaman is chosen, by fate, circumstance, and the spirit of the animals themselves.

The refining of a true shaman is the hardest of all of the metaphysical paths, and often the loneliest. The only ones who will fully be able to stay by the initiate's side are the spirits/essences/avatars that are the kin of their inner companion. Like a steel being tempered, the journey of discovery of their bond to the non human is intense and painful. It is only that which they take within themselves that can accompany them in their dreams, trances, ecstatic states, etc. The journey is all inward looking. Other shamans can help somewhat, in recalling their own journeys in song and poetry, and helping the young shaman know that s/he is not going insane, merely on a different and lonely road. Nowadays, there are very few older shamans around to guide the newly chosen in their quests of self discovery.

There are many "traditions" that include shamans and shamanic practices in them. The Native American traditions do, and they are the ones we hear most about in the USA. Yet the Norse seidh is also a shamanic path. The Celts, Asians, and Africans also had shamans in their more "primitive" societies and ancient religions. The word shaman comes from the Tungus of Siberia, where it is both a noun and a verb to describe the practices of the shaman. (No, it's not the sole property of the Native Americans, folks!)

I've been, um, skating the borders of shamanism myself for a number of years. I don't call myself a shaman, just someone who's being nudged (dragged?) in that direction. I already have a system of magical practice, and a great deal of time spent in introspection and self discovery as a big part of it. Even so, I have the call to explore deeper into the shamanic side, and I've been pretty much just paying it lip service, or ignoring it. I suppose I should stop that...

Comments

Eeeyagga!

[lwood.livejournal.com]

My, yes, that book sounds like complete drek.

Presuming that the (sp?) note meant someone should come along and check your spelling, it's spelled seidh if we're not resorting to exotic eight-bit characters like ð. 8-)

-- Lorrie

Re: Eeeyagga!

[ravan.livejournal.com]

Spelling error fixed now, thank you. Other minor edits as well.

[mlion.livejournal.com]

Yep, that book does sound like drek. I see more and more books like that, and the flurry of wanna-be shamans is disturbing, to say the least.
I think you've distilled the essence of what shamanism is - and isn't - beautifully.
And you're right about it not being a path you choose, but a path that chooses you. I was dragged into it as well, and was fortunate enough to have a few people at different times in my life who told me that I wasn't crazy, that it was normal, albeit strange normal. Or, perhaps, normal for me. ;)
Oh, and if you keep ignoring it, which I've done and still occasionally do, it will become more insistent. Or, pop up at inconvenient times, or when you're least expecting it. Keep me posted, okay

[dubhain.livejournal.com]

Yes, the book is utter dreck, IIRC.

As to distilling the essence of what shamanism(TM) is / isn't, I'm going to be annoyingly Zen for a moment and comment 'To name a thing is to miss the mark'. However, Ravan has done a very good job at approximation.

I don't call myself a shaman(TM), any more than Mlion does. However I have had experiences which others might call 'shamanic(TM)'. They weren't necessarily pleasant, and some of them were downright painful.

The rest is interesting. While I'll hold that, in our society, one may have the right to call oneself anything one wishes (whether 'Shaman(TM)', 'Wiccan(TM)', 'Vitki'(TM), or 'Pope(TM)', there is a significant difference between claiming to be a thing and actually knowing / comprehending the essence of it. This can cause two (perhaps serious) problems:

First, there is a popular degradation of the term being used - to the layman it appears to lose meaning. In actuality, of course, it has as much meaning as it ever did -- it's the individual being described, not the term itself, which makes the difference.

Second, there can develop a misconception on the part of the individual(s) using said term to describe themselves. The belief may develop that 'claiming it makes it so'. The reality, of course, is that claiming the term as descriptive of oneself may or may not have even a remote relationship with accuracy, but if at all relevant, self-description is likely to be a very small part of the essential experience.

Wicca has perhaps suffered the most from this, of any modern religion (Christianity may be an exception). Wicca, because of some of the more naive and childish practices of its eclectics, has become a term most neo-pagan folk shy from at every available opportunity (e.g. 'the Heathenry'). Wicca does, in fact, have a coherent mythology and philosophy. The problem is that only fragments of it have made it into its eclectic community, and many of the fragments which have are not widely accepted or even known within it. This is a danger among mystery religions, and most, including Wicca and Christianity, suffer from it. 'Shamanism(TM)', though a spectrum of practices rather than a religion, suffers even more, in some ways, both because the spectrum is cross-cultural and even less defined than that encompassed by Wicca.

The commonality shared, perhaps by all religions, is that there are (perhaps large) groups of people who delight in adorning themselves with the name of said religion in hopes that they'll gain something from it (usually something they believe they'll see reflected in others' eyes), yet either do not care or do not understand that they are 'missing the mark' (in this case, the essence of the religion which lent it the desirability they're chasing by their attempts to associate themselves with it) by naming themselves and concentrating on associating themselves with it rather than discovering the essence of the religion (or religious path) they see themselves as traveling.

The ironic dimension of all this is, IMO, the fact that this may not, in fact, be an undesirable thing, either for the religion / religious path, or for humanity at large[1]. Whether it is universally undesirable for the individual in question would be, naturally, a matter of opinion....

[1] No, I'm not doing an 'Ayn Rand' elitist dance here. Ask, if you'd like me to expand.

Eegh. Apologies for the length. Hadn't meant to go on so.