Talk:Shamanism
|
|
from what i've heard and read, shamanism was historically widely practiced among the nordic peoples. of course, this is somewhat different from the shamanism practiced among siberian peoples. Gringo300 03:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
- Finnish and Sami (and perhaps Estonian) people does have a strong shamanist tradition. Not however the Germanic poeple that form the majority of the population of Nordic countries (Danes, Norwegians, Swedes etc.). See also Nordic mythology -Himasaram 21:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
| Contents |
Shamanism & Animism
A point of dispute: the article says "In contrast to animism and animatism, which any and usually all members of a society practice, shamanism requires specialized knowledge or abilities."
My view on this is that shamanism is a family of animistic practices, but is distinctive because of the special accomplishments the shaman needs for his practice. I think it makes more sense to view things this way: in a shamanistic culture, non-shamans may have magical practices which are animistic, and these likely will overlap with some practices of the shaman. I think my view is very much the mainstream; in fact this wikipedia article is the first place I have heard the idea that shamanism and animism are disjoint belief systems. ---- Charles Stewart 21:12, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This page needs major edits. Shamanism is limited to southeastern Siberia.
- So what are the native american "Shamans" called then, if not shamans? --Conti|✉ 16:20, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
That question is like asking "What do a flower, a salamander, algae, and a grain of sand have in common?" What I mean is, the answer varies from tribe to tribe, and many tribes have several types of priests, so your question depends on who you're talking about.
The self-described "shamans" I've met were all frauds. The big danger is that the frauds in question block out any discussion of real Indians, much like spam: Lynn Andrews alone has sold more books than all Indian authors put together. For the follower, though, the danger comes in terms of everything from simply losing money to rape or even death from sweat lodge accidents.
First, to limit "shamanism" to a set of practices in siberia is using the word in a much narrower sense than most mean it. we use it as an english word that may denote/connote different things than it did in tungus. To lump together healers and mystics from different indigenous cultures is not an entirely negative thing. while they have different sets of practices, stories, etc; the core of the beleifs and practices stay the same- travelling into heaven to get knowledge and bringing it back, motiffs of the axis mundi and snakes and/or birds guarding that thread between heaven and earth, the intitiation rituals of getting destroyed/eaten by spirits, the use of drumming, etc. they play similar roles from place to place, that of the healer and the sage, etc. it isn't at all like asking what flowers, salamanders, algae, and sand have in common (although that is certainly a worthwhile question.) furthermore, the actual root of the word is disputed; the sanskrit sramana, a mystic and healer, spread to china where it became "saman" with essentially the same meaning, and easily could have spread into tungus without altering the meaning. It's roots are not so certain. things certainly vary from tribe to tribe, and in that case they can each have their own wikipedia entry. Otherwise, the word "shaman" is described fairly satisfactorily here.
second, i edited the paragraph on the new age shamans. while i agree with your sentiment, that they are hucksters to be avoided and hurt the people they take their ill-understood ideas from, there's simply no need to go around claiming that they rape people unless you are going to cite it and show that it's a regular occurance. Heah 21:41, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
ross heaven
ross has been spamming all sorts of articles, i think the link he provided and his book should be removed. click on the ip that added those and you'll see what i mean. many of his additions have already been deleted. unless there is disagreement with this action or he can provide a valid defense as to why his book and site are particularly good resources worthy of note here i'm going to delete the link and the book tomorrow. it seems mostly to be new age stuff on how capitalism can benefit from rainforest retreats.Heah 21:52, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
merge
shaman should be merged here, see talk:Shaman --Heah 06:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Talk page from Shaman
Links:
See http://www.shamanism.org/ for one of the primary teachers in the USA.
Shamanism should not be redirected to shaman, any more than Catholocism should be redirected to priest.--NetEsq 11:37am Sep 6, 2002 (PDT)
I agree completely, and changed the redirect into a very brief stub at Shamanism. Hope someone can expand both these articles.
then perhaps shaman should be redirected to shamanism? In the same way that bisexual redirects to bisexuality... Martin
As long as you seem to be intrested in being silly, why not redirect pape to cahtolic -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 18:03 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Reading this article and the article at shamanism, I see a lot of duplication. If a redirect is not appropriate, perhaps you could solve this problem, and add appropriate cross-links? Martin
Both the articles in themselves are morasses of misconceptions. I have only just discovered their existence. I will do my best to improve them, that is the best I can promise. Fair enough? -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 19:26 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Of course. Martin
What is "tungur"?
* An Icelandic name? * A North Germanic word for "tongue"? * A place in Baikal where earthquakes are studied? * A people in Sudan?
-phma
Found it. It's a drum used by Altaic shamans. -phma
Does anybody disagree with the assertion that Eliade is the best authority on shamans and shamanism? The Shaman article starts with a very convoluted formulation that assumes that everybody knows what a "medicine man" is, and, that the understanding of "medicine man" is correct. It would be useful to distill a brief article from what Eliade has to say about this phenomenon.
[edit]
Problem with one para
§ One paragraph in the article says:
The northen hemisphere shamans (from the viewpoint of noajddes in northen Scandinavia during the 17th century) resemble very much the sophists, e.g. the call of duty, vocabolary arguing, unjustified reputation from their opponents, etc. (Source: not the ones in the reference list below.)
§ As it stands, this paragraph needs revision on several points. For one thing, its author may not intend to do so, but in effect s/he says that during the 17th century some people called noajddes had a critique of shamans, and from the noajddes point of view the shamans resemble sophists. I doubt that many people would be interested in what one ancient group thought about shamans unless they could be shown to have some special insight into the phenomenon. But the author probably means to say something to the effect that if we take the noajddes as examples or prototypes of shamans, then we will decide that shamans are like sophists because noajddes are like shamans. Then the list of things, that is apparently meant to characterize sophists, is a jumble that leaves the reader with the burden of trying to decipher what the writer meant to convey. Does it mean that sophists made prominent in their discourses a call to civic duty? "Vocabulary arguing" literally means something like (1) "arguing about vocabulary" or (2) "arguing that relies on specialized vocabulary" -- or maybe it means something else. "Unjustified reputation from their opponents" might mean that the sophists received unjustifiable characterizations (presumably of a negative nature) from their opponents. Or it might mean that the sophists were accused of giving their opponents unmerited censure. Syntactically, that is a stretch. However what I remember of the sophists was the accusation leveled against Socrates (as a supposed sophist) that he made the worse seem the better cause. Then the author gives a totally unhelpful citation to back up what s/he has said. Unless somebody can fix this paragraph so that it communicates a clear meaning, it should be deleted. P0M 04:59, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I don't think the article represents a picture of shamans in which shamans themself would describe it:
* Shamans have existed in most parts of the world,
o perhaps one should read Shaman-like figures have existed in most parts of the world but it was formally a structure only in Northen America, Northen Europe and is in Siberia. It is employed especially in Circumpolar religions, but some speculates it is derived from a proto-culture in Europe/Eurasia (such as Celtic religion.)
* "Some shamans encourage the belief that they possess supernatural qualities that transcend human nature" and "To wit, shamans are usually credited with the ability to speak to spirits and perform feats of magic such as astral projection and healing"
o perhaps one should read: Shamans are usually found in tribal cultures with nature religions and beliefs in /worship of/ ancestor spirits, though some persons in modern Western Cultures also consider themselves to be shamans. The shaman was (and is) usually a representat of a family tree and thus speaks for many individuals. It is the person you ask and he will give you the answer, such as what happened in Tunguska 1908. Their knowledge (or wisdom) is learned through sagas. Cultures with shamans has neither a script, but they surely uses a symbolic language such as rock-paintings or utility-tool "adornments". Shamanism argued and argues by mouth, and does not conduct warefare as what is currently known.
* One of a shaman's main functions is to protect individuals from hostile supernatural influences.
o hostile supernatural influences? Do a belife that the Earth is round and rotates about its own axis, and a solar system where the sun is in the middle, represents a culture which have belife in "supernatural creatures"?
P0M wrote:
I doubt that many people would be interested in what one ancient group thought about shamans unless they could be shown to have some special insight into the phenomenon.
I think that it is a good idea to state what the modern viewpoint tells us about the "culture collision" with Western Cultures ("christianity") and the Circumpolar Cultures (shamanism). It simply allowed courts to argue that shamans was "in contact" with devils and therefore death penalty was "justified." There is also a statement that Romans killed a group of Druids, but I don't know if this is true and leave it out. I can't understand why people categorize shamanism with magic, sorcery and New Age!? I think that this can be mentioned (and it should surely do) but it should be pointed out that it is a reputation made by others, not the shamans themself, i.e. the Druids, Noajddes, Shamans and the Northen American shamans (do anyone have a name for them?) // Rogper 13:30, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Rogper, do you have anything against the use of "shaman" as a generic term for the ancient role of healer and priest? If so your use of the word is quite different from the use of the word in anthropology. If you want to remove the mainstream definition of "shaman", I suggest you quote scholars who also do so.--Wiglaf 17:46, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Wiglaf, any scholar usually note that the Tungusian shaman, called saman, usually is the model for the world's concept of shamanism, but that their culture is completely different from those others. They don't share a thing except that they have two legs and two arms, and are quite aggressive in their role. Questions? No, I have nothing against using the term "shaman" as a generetic term for the "ancient role of healer and priest". // Rogper 13:36, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC) :-)
Sorry for sounding rude. I just think that "shaman" is a good term for this role, and I have tried to distinguish between the original sense in the paragraph beginning with specifically and the extended generic sense in the paragraph beginning with generically.--Wiglaf 19:12, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit]
Merge
I just reorganized this article. i added a sentence or two and reworded a couple sentences, aside from that and moving everything it still should all be here. but reading over the entry, i'm really not sure why this should be a seperate article from shamanism. although the analogy was drawn between this and redirecting pope to catholic, it really isn't the same thing at all- the shamanism entry is not about a religion, it is about shamans and what they do- their practices, techniques, roles in society, etc. Its an entry on shaman-ism, not animism, or totemism, or paganism. Much of the information here is duplicated in the shamanism entry, and when it comes to the few things that aren't, i can't find any reason they should be here as opposed to the shamanism entry. Opinions?? --Heah 06:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
merge
i've merged in shaman. the only thing i found there not covered here is initiation and the interesting joseph campbell quote, others should double check. --Heah 07:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
reorganization
i've tried to reorganize the article as it was very scattered and had lots of repititions. The only thing that got cut is the section on core shamanism, which was actually longer than the article on core shamanism; it is breifly explained and linked to in the "shamanism and new age" section. References will come as soon as i get all the publishing etc info. --Heah 06:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Sometimes people from Western cultures claim to be shamans. This is considered offensive by many indigenous medicine men, and it is often simply not true- many of these new age, western "shamans" are little more than hucksters out for money and affirmation of self. For Indians, the danger is that their voices will be drowned out by self-styled "shamans"; in fact, Lynn Andrews has sold more books than all Indian authors put together.
- I find the wording in this section to be very POV and is probably better left out until it can be objectified or backed up somehow. There is a lot of legitimacy to be found in contemporary (Western) shamanism if you separate the wheat from the chaff. Furthermore, many indigenous cultures are also actually hopeful that their traditions might continue in the West, and in many cases their voices are actually amplified in Western culture. That said, I still agree that there are probably far fewer 'legitimage' shamans and shamanistic practitioners operating in Western society. We just need to find a better way to cover this accurately comprehensively in this article -- if it comes down to it, perhaps by showing this division of perspective. — FJ | hello 05:17, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
- I completely agree- it once said that new age shamans would rape you and steal your money, so i took that out and re-worded it a bit, but it isn't really satisfactory. I do think that it is a point that should be made, but as you say we shouldn't toss the baby out with the bath water. The point about many indigenous people hoping that their traditions continue in the west also definetly needs to be in there. --Heah (talk) 05:35, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Article tone
"Shamans gain knowledge and power by traversing the axis mundi and bringing back knowledge from the heavens." "Oftentimes the shaman has one or more familiar helping entities in the spirit world." "The shaman often will enter the body of their patient to find the spirit making the patient sick" "In engaging in this work the shaman exposes himself to significant personal risk from the spirit world" "Generally, the shaman traverses the axis mundi and enters the spirit world by effecting a change of consciousness in himself"
All of these quotes are stated as facts, as if there were no doubt that Shamen travers the axis mundi, that they can enter bodies and that they are at risk from the spirit world. Is there any way that we can make this article factually neutral? You won't find phrases in the Pope article suggesting that the Pope actually talks to God, anything in Muhammad that states that an angel actually spoke to him, or even anything in witchcraft that states that witches can curse people. We need to make sure that we are distinguishing between beliefs (which may or may not be true) and facts (which have been shown to be true). This article is currently phrasing beliefs in the form of facts. — Asbestos | Talk 08:35, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- I actually have very mixed feelings about this, but if you want to throw in some "shamans are credited with the ability to . . . " or "according to tradition . . . " or whatever that's fine. But first of all, this is from Muhammad-
- while meditating, Muhammad had a vision of the angel Gabriel and heard a voice saying to him in rough translation "Read in the name of your Lord the Creator. He created man from something which clings. Read and your Lord is the Most Honored. He taught man with the pen; taught him all that he knew not." (See surat Al-Alaq for a fuller account.)
- The first vision of Gabriel disturbed Muhammad, but his wife Khadijah reassured him that it was a true vision and became his first follower. She was soon followed by his ten-year-old cousin Ali ibn Abi Talib and his closest friend Abu Bakr.
- Until his death, Muhammad received frequent revelations, although there was a relatively long gap after the first revelation. This silence worried him, until he received surat ad-Dhuha, whose words provided comfort and reassurance.
- so it does actually say that muhammad "had a vision of an angel", "heard a voice", "received revelations".
- secondly, what is factually neutral in this sort of situation? (and by extension, everything, but its just actually an issue here, i'm not attacking npov policy). the NPOV here being, eg, "shamans enter trance states, often facilitated by the use of rythmic drumming or hallucinogenic compounds, where they beleive they talk to the spirits of plants". Is it factually neutral to claim that they "beleive" they talk to plant spirits? They certainly beleive that it is fact, and a significant population of the world beleives that this is fact. They would say they have experienced such things, that they are facts. If making this article from more of a npov, it would only seem proper to make sure and do the same for the other side- what we consider "fact" is also beleif. i've never seen a molecule, have you? yet we don't feel the need to preface that with "In the west, it is often beleived . . . " chemical actions in the brain are no more "fact" for a shaman than plant spirits are "facts" to a western materialist.
- Of course, this usually doesn't matter; this is just sort of an odd situation. It is their job to traverse the axis mundi; that is what they do. They make friends with plant spirits; that is where they get their powers. No matter how WE interpret this, it is very much fact for them.
- I'm sure some happy medium can be found in which due respect is maintained and "In shamanic societies, it is beleived that . . . " is a preface. But this is touchier than most npov issues; it deals directly with the issues of "objectivity" that npov attempts to and normally succeeds at avoiding. We don't know whats really going on- we would say we can locate the molecular actions with our technologies, technologies alien and practically meaningless to them; they say they can talk to plant spirits with their technologies, technologies that are very alien and practically meaningless to us. both have long histories of use, both have many practitioners, both are utile in their own ways. we should remember this, and remember that npov does not seek to be the "objective" point of view. This is very important in an article such as this. --Heah (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- Your quotes from Muhammad are much better than the ones in this article. It is fine to state that he "had a vision of the angel Gabriel": the article does not state "The angel Gabriel visited him." To say that Shamen have visions is one thing, to state that they actually talk to spirits is another.
- You discussion of the molecule is disengeneous: there is plenty of scientific evidence for the molecule, none for talking to spirits. A better parallel would have been the article on Christianity, which talks about things such as God and heaven in terms of beliefs, even though most of its adherents would probably think of them as facts.
- Anyway, the only apparent solution is the introduction of weasel words such as "according to shamanic beliefs" and so forth. If I get a chance, I will try making the article neutral.
- — Asbestos | Talk 10:11, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- I too was concerned when I came across the phrasing for the axis mundi and other segments. I agree with Heah about the need for some preamble. It should also state that in the shamanistic world view the world is divided into three major regions, etc, etc. We could even bring in an analogy with Greek religion, which exhibits analogous (and possibly homologous) subdivisions. Haiduc 10:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)