Home
Jarin Dreamsinger
Spiritually On-Call 

Advertisement

Customize
13th-Nov-2007 05:43 pm
Kirin
I've been giving a lot of thought to the subject of Shamanism recently. Particularly the question of how a Shaman relates to the gods/spirits they work with. I have to say, I completely agree with [info]per_akh's statement that completely giving oneself over to the dictates of the spirit world to point where it eclipses your work, your relationships, and even your responsibilities to your children sounds extremely unhealthy. Some people have suggested that this attitude is what distinguishes the Shaman, in service to the spirits/gods, from the Shamanist. So far, I'm not really convinced by that line of reasoning.

Shamans in the modern world do not generally get paid by the tribes they serve for their service. Certainly they are rarely, if ever, paid a sufficient amount to support themselves wholly on their income as Shamans. They are also rarely independently wealthy. This means in order to feed, clothe, and shelter themselves properly they need to work for a living at a mundane job. If their Shamanism interferes with that mundane work, it directly interferes with their ability to meet their most basic human needs. A Shaman who is left constantly struggling to meet the most basic elements of survival is not going to have much energy left to serve others, let alone be in the proper state of mind to journey to the otherworld and deal with the beings and dangers there.

Human needs are an important point. Shamans, whatever gifts they may have which set them apart, are not immune to basic human needs. And one of the most basic is love and companionship. And while relationships with nonphysical entities are certainly possible, they are not generally as fulfilling as those in which you can touch your partner, hear their voice, hold them or be held by them at night. A Shaman who is denied the fulfillment of a relationship outside of their Shamanic work may have all of their physical needs met, but they are being starved emotionally. Would you want someone who is mentally and emotionally off-balance, for whatever reason, mediating between you and the spirit world?

The same point holds true when it comes to one's children. There are very few emotional bonds stronger than those between parent and child. Interfering with that bond necessarily creates distress and interferes with the emotional stability of both parent and child. And interfering with the parent's ability to meet their responsibilities to their child creates an even more obvious threat to the child's well-being. I can't help but wonder if any god or spirit which essentially demands one's child be sacrificed (either by forcing the parent to give them up, or by denying the child proper care to their physical and mental detriment) is actually worthy of service.

Service. That is another important point: to what extent are Shamans in service to the gods and spirits they work with? There is a word in the English language for someone who is in service to another being so completely that the being they serve controls their work, their ability to meet their basic needs, their relationships, and even their custody of their children. That word is slave. So the question must be: Are Shamans the slaves of the gods and spirits they work with? I don't think so, and for a very simple reason: it is not possible to truly serve two masters. The nature of a Shaman's work is to be in service to the tribe. They mediate with the spirit world on behalf of the tribe. They go before the gods on behalf of the tribe, to plead the tribe's case and ask for aid for the tribe. They are the advocates of their tribe in the spirit world, not the advocates of the gods in the physical world.

Advocates... that may actually be a good model with which to look at it. It is possible there are people who engage in shamanistic practices who are in service to the gods in this manner, who act as their hands in the physical world. But can they really be in service to the tribe if their loyalties are to the spirit world? I tend to think confusing the two is rather like confusing a prosecutor and a defense attorney. They may both be lawyers, but their roles as advocates are very different. Similarly, both the person who advocates for his people before the gods and the person who advocates for the gods to his people may serve as mediators between the two realms, but their focus is very different.

I believe it is the Shaman's job to advocate on behalf of his tribe when he journeys to the spirit realm. To bargain with the gods, spirits, ancestors, etc on behalf of his people. Even to fight with them on his people's behalf, if he must. To be Prometheus, stealing fire. To be Raven, stealing the sun and the moon and the stars. To be Loki, descending into the realm of the dwarves and bargaining with them for the greatest treasures of his adopted tribe. The Shaman, acting in this role, only obeys the gods and spirits to the extent which it is in his tribe's best interest to do so. They work with them, they may build alliances with them for the benefit of the tribe, but their primary concern is the tribe's benefit rather than the gods.

Taking the opposite role of advocating for the gods to man, especially to the point where one is giving control of one's life over to them to the point where one could be considered their slave, requires a fundamentally different understanding of the relationship between man and the spirit world. It requires the shaman to see the gods as fundamentally superior beings to man, beings which have a divine right to command the lives of men, beings which are infallible in their instructions, and beings which are always good. It requires a belief that the gods have a right to be lawgivers and judges, juries and executioners, over man. In short, it requires the tribe to submit to the gods in much the same manner as the spiritual advocate who considers himself the slave of the gods.

This is a position which is fundamentally incompatible with much of pagan theology. Historically, pagan myths are full of tales of gods with just as many flaws as human beings themselves. They are full of jealous gods, lustful gods, angry gods, petulant gods, kind gods, gentle gods, and above all fallible gods. They are full of tales of the gods warring with one another, tricking one another, interfering in the lives of man to their benefit and their detriment, of being tricked and challenged and aided by man. From Orpheus to Maui, from Coyote to Ama-no-Uzume, the myths of the world are full of such tales. And if you accept that as an accurate depiction of the gods... if the gods are not perfect, not infallible, not all-knowing, not eternally benevolent... then the only way it really makes sense for the Shaman to work with them is as consultants, co-workers, friends, or adversaries as the situation warrants. Just like they would any living being.

For my part, I join my brothers in their defiance of any god or spirit which would make such demands. I will take care of my physical, emotional, and mental well-being. I will work a mundane job, maintain my relationships, and live my life. I will do anything I can to help those I consider Family, both mundanely and through my work with the otherworld, but in order to do that I need to be in a position to help. And I will not be in that position if I am incapable of caring for my own needs. The best way I can get to a position where I can take care of my Family, my chosen "tribe," is to take care of myself first. And my life-partners and children, should I ever have any, are part of that tribe rather than separate from it, and I will fight to keep them with no less devotion than I will fight on behalf of the rest of my Family. To do any less would be a betrayal of both my Family and myself.
Comments 
13th-Nov-2007 10:58 pm (UTC)
Interesting stuff to chew on.

First off, in traditional societies shamans still have families and often have occupations other than "shaman". In the Jivaro tribe in the Amazon, for example, I think up to a quarter of all the men in the tribe are both hunters and shamans. However, it's also true that in others, the shamans were supported by the gifts of the community--IF they did their shamanising well. A bad shaman ended up poor and out of a job. As for being a modern shaman, one solution is to find an occupation that weaves in with shamanizing. While that's not what I'm doing right now, I do have goals fopr self-employment that aren't shamanizing for a living but that will allow me to make my occupation a spiritual one.

As for advocating, that's a good way of putting it. The shaman isn't controlled by the spirits; in some cases, the shaman may control them, in others simply bargain with them. But in a worldview where spirits are often seen as the causes of ailments, that's a valuableplace to be in. If you wan tto talk being *controlled* by and *submitting* to gods, try the priesthood.
14th-Nov-2007 12:07 am (UTC)
Weaving an occupation in with shamanizing is still maintaining a day job, so to speak. Even if your job is something like writing about magic, it still requires work (writing, research, interviews, proofreading, marketing, etc) outside of the scope of simply being a shaman. If the spirits one works with are so demanding and controlling that they interfere with holding down a day job, I would think this would apply equally to any job that is not directly shamanizing. Being able to take the time to be a pagan writer, for instance, but not to work at a supermarket or do data entry, smacks more of personal preferences than the actual "will of the gods", and I think the same would hold true for any means of support which could be directly interwoven with shamanizing. There's nothing wrong with that being one's personal preference, of course, but I think it would be a mistake to attribute it to a requirement of serving the gods.

And yes, the idea of being a god-spouse or a god-slave does seem like it would have more in common with traditional priesthoods than shamanic traditions.
14th-Nov-2007 01:17 pm (UTC)
God-slave? Hey I know some of those. *giggle* Something I never aspired to. Love it.
15th-Nov-2007 11:53 pm (UTC)
Their term, actually, not mine.

"Being aware that stress can come from simple mundane things is important too. Many of us are kept on a fairly short leash by our Gods which can include truncating personal relationships. The isolation and marginalization of being who and what we are can create an amazing level of emotional and psychological stress as can the hostility we often must face on a day to day basis from the communities we serve. The cure for this, if cure there is, lies in seeking out and developing a community of spirit workers, shamans, god-slaves, god-spouses, mystics, et al. as a support network … people of like mind, who understand and share both the work and the strains. Having that community to fall back on can be immensely strengthening in and of itself.

-Galina Krasskova"

If it wasn't clear, my whole post was pretty much a commentary on the essay that quote is taken from, available here: http://www.cauldronfarm.com/writing/shamansickness.html

Specifically the parts under the heading "Spouses, Partners, and Other Hapless Bystanders".
14th-Nov-2007 06:30 am (UTC)
I always considered that I dance with Fox. :) We're not equals, that's just silly. But allies. (Man, I hope Fox doesn't think of me as a snot nosed little cub. I never thought to ask, actually.)
15th-Nov-2007 11:55 pm (UTC)
*shrugs* I have a hard time wrapping my head around the concept of anyone taking on an ally who is not an equal... if you're not Fox's equal, of what use are you as an ally to him? We don't generally make "allies" of people inferior to ourselves, so I can't imagine how he could ally himself with a "snot nosed little cub" if he does see you that way.
16th-Nov-2007 01:08 am (UTC)
Simple. I'm an access point into /this/ world that Fox can look through and work through. Thus, a allied human. I get protection, and a gate into Fox's world.

You can't at all ascribe 'human' motives to nonhuman powers. It's dangerously foolish to do so, and although there may be truths in folklore, folklore is never -all- the truth, and reading it isn't the same thing as being nose to nose with the described entities. Powers and Gods are what they are for a reason; people don't venerate and worship and respect and submit because they're stupid or flawed or less wise then you are.

It is kind of...Western-centric...to assume humans have any greater innate value then any other creature alive. This culture has done amazing damage to everything, with that basic intrinsic assumption that humans mean more and are entitled to more just for being human.

Basically? We're all animals. And the universe honestly doesn't care a whit what we want, it just is.
16th-Nov-2007 01:48 am (UTC)
So you become Fox's gate into this world, and Fox becomes your gate into his world. Sounds like a potentially equal relationship to me. You're both getting something which otherwise you would not have... in this case something 100% analogous, a doorway into a world not-your-own.

The thing about motivation is this: human or inhuman, incarnate or disincarnate, mortal or god, people are pretty much people. They have needs, both physical and emotional. They have wants. They have whims and interests and duties and loves and hates and boredom and dreams and everything else that makes life life. Especially if you're something that is the living essence of an aspect of life, such as an incarnation of what it means to be Fox or an anthropomorphization of Hope. Fox would not be Fox devoid of the impulse to play, or the ability to enjoy it. Fox wouldn't be Fox if Fox couldn't dream of green fields and chasing after a mouse. Of curling up next to mate and kits. Because all of these things are essential to the experience of what it means to be a fox. So knowing this and other aspects of what Fox Is, one can get a pretty good insight into Fox's motivations. Folklore isn't really necessary to the process, though it provides decent confirmation of those things which hold true around the world.

Powers and gods are what they are. Exactly what that is, and the reasons for it, are disputed by a multitude of spiritual traditions the world over, and I doubt we're going to settle the question here and now. Some traditions say man can become gods, others that we already are and just need to realize it, and still others laugh at the idea of man being anything more than a pawn for the gods. People approach the gods in many ways, and for many reasons. I'm in favor of working with the gods and spirits as individuals. There are some I respect and honor for various reasons, none of which has to do with any innate superiority. There are many who have abilities and information that I do not have. The same can be said of many humans, though. And I also have abilities and information that they do not, not least the ability to directly affect the physical. I work with them. So far, none of the ones I work with seem to have a problem with me approaching them as equals. And they actually seem to like the fact that I put thought into what I have to offer them in exchange for their services.

I'm not suggesting humans have more value than any other creature, or are entitled to more just for being human. Quite the contrary. I'm suggesting that neither do gods and spirits necessarily have more value than humans, or are entitled to more just for being gods and spirits.

Basically? We're all people. And the universe is a lot bigger than any of us, including the gods.
16th-Nov-2007 02:03 am (UTC)
Fox has a strong sense of humor. Not 'tricksterish' like Coyote, but sometimes you can just tell that sie thinks something's funny. I've also noticed that the 'invisibility in plain sight' thing commented on in various sources is true - Fox passes unseen, and so do hir people.

Still, power-levels? Me = * Fox = *****

Sie could crush me like a bug. Won't, but certainly there's no question who'd win a 'confrontation'.

When I get instructions from Fox, in a dream or vision, they may be something I can deduce what it's for - "Get birdseed, feed all the birds in this park" is pretty direct. But it might be something totally obscure and seemingly without reason like 'wear green for a week'. I don;'t demand explanations for everything, or clarifications of everything. I do what I'm asked to do, because things have reasons.

I enjoy my relationship with my Totem, it fills a place in me. Seems satisfactory to Fox too, I'm sure I'd know if it was otherwise.

There are some powers who do not compromise with humans. Norse pantheon, comes to mind. Celtic pantheon. I'd say if a person doesn't want to be subservient to a godform they shouldn't work with the pantheons that pretty much demand it. I don't know what I'd say to someone who didn't want to work with one of those powers other then "Avoid..."
16th-Nov-2007 02:32 am (UTC)
In a direct confrontation sure. But there are humans who'd squash me like a bug in a direct confrontation too, and that doesn't make me inferior to them. It means we're different. Also doesn't mean they can't be beaten by me, in circumstances where different kinds of strength are required. And even the great Tricksters like Coyote can themselves be tricked, if you work on letting them outsmart themselves and turn their own strengths against them.

I haven't had problems working with either Norse or Celtic pantheons as equals. I actually have a very hard time imagining either pantheon respecting someone who did not approach them that way. In the Norse tradition especially, dead heroes are collected from the battlefield not just as a way of honoring the dead, but to eventually become troops for Ragnarok, implying these are men of such skill that they can hold their own in battle against the enemies of the Aesir. Skill, strength, intellect, boldness, honor... these are things that both the Celtic and Norse pantheons value above all. Subservience is not a quality highly esteemed.
16th-Nov-2007 02:53 am (UTC)
I directly know someone who 'belonged' to Odin. "Godslave" seems to be /very/ common in modern Asatru...suggest you might want to look into that? As far as I can tell, the deities in question do claim people. Not all the people stay claimed - the one I know split from Odin's service when he perceived that he and his friends were not important in any way to the God, other then as 'poker chips'.

What specific deities have you worked with? I'm rather curious, as the Norse pantheon is so -alien- to me that I can't even make a basic connection to it, so I sort of watch it from afar. As for the Celtic one, I've had amiable relationships with some. But I can't *imagine* approaching a being like the Morrigan with anything but the utmost caution.

Edited at 2007-11-16 03:01 am (UTC)
16th-Nov-2007 03:55 am (UTC)
Perhaps there is a split in modern Asatru theology, but I'm far more familiar with the Asatru tradition which interprets the Norse value of Self-Reliance, part of the Nine Noble Virtues assembled from their sacred texts, to indicate that the gods should be approached as equals.

"In terms of our relationships with the Gods, self-reliance is also very important. If we wish the Gods to offer us their blessings and gifts, we must make ourselves worthy of them--and the Gods are most pleased with someone who stands on their own two feet. This is one of the reasons for the Asatru "rule" that we do not kneel to the Gods during our ceremonies. By standing we acknowledge our relationship as striving and fulfilled people looking for comradeship and a relationship, rather than acting as scraelings looking for a handout from on high. It takes very little for a God to attract a follower, if worship simply means getting on the gravy train. We, as Asatruar, are people who can make our own way in the world, but who choose to seek a relationship with the Gods."
http://www.webcom.com/~lstead/RBValues.html

"We do not fear the Holy Powers, or consider ourselves their slaves. On the contrary, we share community and fellowship with the Divine. The Holy Powers encourage us to grow and advance to higher levels."
http://www.runestone.org/home.html

As for the deities I've worked with, quite a number of them over the years. Odin and Loki the most consistently (slightly more of the latter than the former), followed by Frey and then by Thor and finally Tyr. I've tried working with Freyja a bit, but I really haven't connected well with any of the full females of that pantheon, Odin and Loki and Thor have been the closest I've come to the feminine of that tradition. (Loki I should think is obvious, Odin is known for practicing seid which was considered womans work, and Thor got himself married off as a bride once in full drag to save Freyja from a marriage to a giant.)

And no, I wouldn't approach the Great Queen with anything but caution and respect. But acting weak and submissive? That's just gonna get my throat torn out, whether she chooses to use me first or not. While she became Cuchulainn's enemy, she was also in love with him, and it's quite clear that he treated her as an equal, even wounding her in battle three times and cursing her not to recovering until he blessed her. She did not reserve her love for those who abased themselves before the gods.
16th-Nov-2007 05:38 am (UTC)
There's a very fundamental disconnect in how we see the world vs how you see it, I think.

Sacrifice and submission as concepts mean different things to us in a huge way, and I think that's likely to remain the truth. They don't mean 'weakness' to us. It takes a hell of a lot more strength to bend your knee where it's appropriate then it does to be completely stiff-necked. The thing is to know when it's appropriate.

RE the Norse pantheon, we've never managed -any- connection, not even enough to communicate. Not sure why, it might be a bloodlines thing or an energy thing. Rich is a priest of Frey, Corey's worked with Loki but I don't 'get' it. :p It's like there's nothing there to me at all.



16th-Nov-2007 06:03 am (UTC)
Submission in some contexts (such as when it is freely given) does not mean weakness to me, but so far not one reasonable purpose has been offered for the gods expecting automatic submission from man, not even "We are both consenting Beings and it brings the two of us mutual pleasure but may not be right for everyone". Instead it's been offered as an axiom of existence, particularly for Celtic and Norse pantheons. An axiom which is very much not in line with the modern Asatru tradition as far as I can tell. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en-us&q=%22kneeling%22%2B%22asatru%22&btnG=Search

So far, the worse the Morrigan has ever done to me for daring to think of her as an equal is supposedly "command" someone to break up with me over a flamewar on a mailing list once. Frankly, if there's any truth at all in that, I probably owe her one. ;-)

Until such time as I start actually having problems with the gods I work with for interacting with them in this manner, I think I will keep my own counsel and theirs on when it is and is not appropriate to bend my knee to them. So far, they've never asked.
16th-Nov-2007 01:09 pm (UTC)
Do your thing; allow for others to do theirs. There are people you've never met who have relationships with their Gods that involve acknowledging that those Gods are...Gods. That doesn't make them wrong, because it'd bug you.

Let's drop it at that, okay? I don't think we're going to come closer to common ground then we have. Radically different life experiences. (Seriously, if this body were born male and we'd not become multiple, the chances of ending up a Catholic priest were up there in the 90th percentile...)
16th-Nov-2007 01:55 pm (UTC)
So far as I know, I haven't stopped anyone from doing theirs. That doesn't mean I consider their practices healthy, in the cases of spirit workers who give their gods carte blanche to tell them to get rid of their job, their relationships, or their children. If any mortal Dominant did that to a submissive, there'd be some serious issues in that relationship. That doesn't mean there aren't Doms who do demand things along those lines from their submissives, but I think most rational people would agree that such behavior is unhealthy. I expect more from the gods than behaving as pseudo-Gorean Dominants towards mortals. And I see no reason to withhold judgement and commentary just because there are people who believe otherwise, any more than I see reason to withhold my opinions on bad D/s practices simply because there are people who engage in them and don't think they're bad.

You're right, we're probably not going to come any closer to agreement. But I don't think it's necessarily a life experience thing. Apart from the fact that I was born male myself, how much do you know about what my life experiences have been? I was raised Catholic myself, and was quite devout until high school when I started realizing some of the metaphysical experiences I'd been having were best understood in a pagan magical paradigm. I didn't lean towards the priesthood because of the whole celibacy thing, but I did know enough of the bible when I was 13 to regularly stump priests by asking them about the apparent contradictions in it. And no, I was not doing it out of maliciousness, I was hoping they would actually have the answers of how to rationally reconcile such things. Seemed like it would be in their job description.
16th-Nov-2007 01:13 am (UTC)
Actually... it -does- happen. Take the American government. It makes 'allies' of countries it considers inferior to itself all the time. Then, when it considers that those 'allies' become bothersome, it kicks them in the nuts.

A bully often treats his or her circle as 'allies', even though as the ringleader, he or she usually considers him/herself superior to those around him/her.

There's no doubt, in either of these situations, that these 'allies' are considered useful to superior force. *shrugs* These are just the first two examples I thought of, no doubt there are others.
16th-Nov-2007 01:26 am (UTC)
The problem with your example is that in neither case are they truly allies. They are essentially minions and yes-men, and ally is reduced to a euphemism. I'm assuming for the moment that [info]netdancer is using ally in the more honest sense of the term.
16th-Nov-2007 02:05 am (UTC)
I don't see it as a 'problem' with my example. I am well aware that what is an 'ally' in those situations is not, in all actuality. What I was pointing out is that people do make what they call 'allies' with those they consider inferior to themselves. As long as everyone acts as they should, the myth of allies is maintained. It actually has nothing at all to do with the whole spiritual discussion as the statement that people don't do it. They do. It might be a lie, but they do.
16th-Nov-2007 02:33 am (UTC)
But if it's a lie when they do, then it's a point largely irrelevant to this discussion, unless the Gods are also lying when they call mortals "allies".
16th-Nov-2007 01:11 pm (UTC)
Thing is, they could be. How would you tell?
16th-Nov-2007 01:56 pm (UTC)
The same way you'd tell if a human were lying about considering you an ally: how they actually treat you. If they treat you as a toady, if they expect you to submit to them because of how awesome they naturally are and how worthless you are in comparison, if they demand tribute and servility and unquestioning obedience... you're probably not really an ally.
13th-Nov-2007 11:55 pm (UTC)
"Taking the opposite role of advocating for the gods to man, especially to the point where one is giving control of one's life over to them to the point where one could be considered their slave, requires a fundamentally different understanding of the relationship between man and the spirit world. It requires the shaman to see the gods as fundamentally superior beings to man, beings which have a divine right to command the lives of men, beings which are infallible in their instructions, and beings which are always good. It requires a belief that the gods have a right to be lawgivers and judges, juries and executioners, over man. In short, it requires the tribe to submit to the gods in much the same manner as the spiritual advocate who considers himself the slave of the gods."

I have a word for all this: Dominionism.
13th-Nov-2007 11:58 pm (UTC)
For further elaboration: Why would those gods even need advocates? They're omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc. If something claimed all these qualities for itself, and then wants me, a mere mortal, to serve as its "advocate," I would do every banishing ritual I knew really fast! That spirit is a liar and not divine.
14th-Nov-2007 01:52 am (UTC)
How many gods were really said to be all of those things? To my knowledge, not many fulfilled all of those requirements (omniscience, omnipotence (Greek, Roman, tribal), et al).
14th-Nov-2007 02:25 am (UTC)
When you get right down to it, even some of the ones who it is claimed for do not actually display it in the stories about them. A great example is God's test of Abraham's faith, by demanding he sacrifice his son. A truly omniscient God would not require a test to measure faith, he would simply know.
14th-Nov-2007 04:02 am (UTC)
One traditional response: God did know the extent of Abraham's faith. The test was necessary so that Abraham would know.
15th-Nov-2007 11:56 pm (UTC)
Yeah, I've heard that line of reasoning, but of what use is it for Abraham to know his faith is that absolute if God knows Abraham will never ACTUALLY need to sacrifice his son out of faith?
16th-Nov-2007 01:18 am (UTC)
Knowledge is power, is it not? In knowing what you are (and are not) capable of, you come to understand yourself to a greater degree. Abraham would have reached a greater degree of self-enlightenment, which is highly valued in some faiths and cultures.
16th-Nov-2007 01:53 am (UTC)
In some systems, yes, but in the Abrahamic tradition decidedly the opposite... self-knowledge (ie, "we's nekkid!") is the root of all evil.
14th-Nov-2007 02:28 am (UTC)
This is good stuff.

Thank you.
15th-Nov-2007 11:56 pm (UTC)
My pleasure. :)
14th-Nov-2007 02:41 am (UTC)
Cherokee have a very interesting viewpoint on all of this--we *used* to have a formal priesthood (this would be roughly in the day that the Natchez people had a roaring civilisation in the southeast US, like in the 1500s and all) but eventually the priests were overthrown for taking too much power to themselves.

Hence a lot of practice now is of the "practical magick" sort--there are the old workers, yeah, but they're not part of a formal priesthood, and a lot of magickal working tends to be among the hedge magick sort of thing. You have people more specialised for certain things, though, and you do have people initiated into specific subspecialties.

(In other words, yes, there are shamans and formal shamanic systems as well as a lot of general "hedge magick" that even non-initiated people do. Everyone pretty much remembers the story of kicking out the priests as a cautionary tale, though.)

Re the idea of shamans as advocates...forgive me if I am being a bit, erm, irreverent...but I'm suddenly picturing magickal lawyers. Even more so, a magickal version of Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney or a consumer protection advocate :D (I tend to look at the Animal Masters more as friends than as potential plaintiffs or lobbying partners, but that doesn't mean I can't see the parallel. I'm just tittering over my own mental image of Phoenix Wright shouting "OBJECTION!" whilst in full regalia. Yes, for the record, I've also had similar titters over the Book of Job where Satan is the Prosecuting Attorney for God and Job is the plaintiff (over seeing God as Judge Wapner). Yes, I do grind sacred cows into hamburger on occasion :D)
14th-Nov-2007 03:47 am (UTC)
> giving oneself over to the dictates of the spirit world to point where it eclipses
> your work, your relationships, and even your responsibilities to your children
> sounds extremely unhealthy.

In some cases it is not exactly a choice, IMO. A a person may be gifted with the ability to see between realms better than most people, and for that reason he or she may not be as effective in the physical.

Whether or not that gift interferes with normal functioning would depend upon how "afflicted" the person is with the gift. In some lucky cases, the person can find a profession that is augmented by the gift, but such professions are hard to find... In unlucky cases, they become castaways. I don't think someone thus afflicted is necessarily unhealthy, but the relationship that society has to the spirit world is very stunted and limited right now - hopefully they'll get over it at some point.

What *is* unhealthy, imo, is for someone with relatively "normal" perceptions to actively seek to immerse into the spirit world to the point where normal functioning is impaired. My preference would be to leave that for the people who already have that gift, and help to change society's attitude about such things so they will be taken care of in a way that will allow them to interact fully with their gift and be respected.
14th-Nov-2007 01:25 pm (UTC)
Is that not how it is supposed to be? I always that a shaman was some thing you could not walk away from even if you wanted to. I told an Native American aquaintance that I did not want to be a shaman. To which he replied you can't be one. He had been approached by people who wanted to learn. I wanted to understand only. I did not ask him to teach me only to explain it. We had some interesting conversations. It definitly is not for everyone. i would agree it affects people diferently and I know wiccans who spend so much time in the spirit realme they do not work.
16th-Nov-2007 02:21 am (UTC)
Anonymous
> I thought that a shaman was something you could not walk away from if you wanted to

That's exactly what I'm saying - I believe it is gift (or affliction, depending upon your point of view).
16th-Nov-2007 03:04 am (UTC)
It's certainly a knock on the head, a changing of perspective.

I'm frustrated, I can't find the words to explain an intuitive knowledge. English is such a crappy language sometimes.

But Fox isn't...'just folks'. Just, isn't.
16th-Nov-2007 12:13 am (UTC)
I have a hard time buying into that concept. I've seen it used far more often as an excuse for people not to have to learn to operate in the physical. Certain people who can't go out job-hunting in the winter due to "allergies to cold" but who are quite capable of spending hours in the cold talking about past-lives and other worlds as long as they're not called upon to hold down a mundane job spring to mind. I've yet to meet anyone legitimately unable to hold down a day job because of their great spiritual gifts.

Moreover, I'm not sure I'd be able to rely upon someone like that if I ever did. Shamans act as a bridge between the worlds... you can't bridge a gap like that unless you're firmly anchored on both sides. Someone so "spiritually gifted" that they had problems staying anchored on this side wouldn't make for a very stable bridge.

Besides, how are we to know that they actually are firmly anchored on the other side, if they're clearly not here? I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want a dentist so "gifted" at dentistry that he couldn't read past a third grade level. I expect more from someone in the role of a shaman than what is effectively a spiritual idiot savant.
16th-Nov-2007 12:23 am (UTC)
I have no problem with someone who is firmly anchored in both worlds. What I was saying is that I prefer someone who due to no fault of their own is more firmly anchored in the other world (and doesn't function that well here) to someone firmly anchored here but who seeks to anchor completely there, and then uses that as an excuse not to function. There's a fine line, but there's a difference. I would not rely upon a person not anchored here, but if they are a source of inspiration in other ways (artistic, music, poetry, spiritual insights, etc.,) I'm ok with that.
16th-Nov-2007 01:51 am (UTC)
How exactly do you tell the difference between someone who is firmly anchored here who seeks to anchor there and uses it as an excuse not to function, and someone who through no fault of their own is more firmly anchored in the other world and doesn't function well here? And why exactly should that person be given a free pass on nonfunctioning rather than being expected to put the kind of effort into functioning in this world that most metaphysical practitioners put into learning to function in the otherworld? I'm really not getting how this distinction is practical or desirable to make.
16th-Nov-2007 02:16 am (UTC)
Anonymous
I guess I woudn't apply the word "shaman" to such a person. As to whether or not I would object to their existence, it would depend on if the good outweighed the bad.
16th-Nov-2007 02:02 am (UTC)
As further context for why I'm so opposed to this line of reasoning, this is a quote from the article that my essay is more or less a response to/reflection on:

"I try to be supportive. I have respect for the intensity of her faith, but I also see it as an excuse in a way not to deal with immediate problems or goals. It's much easier to blame the Gods because things are not fortuitous than to change them. When my girlfriend went out and spent $1000 we did not have on archery equipment because the gods told her to hunt (which is hilarious because she is totally uncoordinated and does not eat meat), or spends most of the extra money around the holidays on liquor that goes into the ground, I realize all I can do is support her and chalk it up as her eccentricities."
http://www.cauldronfarm.com/writing/shamansickness.html
14th-Nov-2007 06:24 am (UTC)
I think I've been VERY lucky, in that my relationship with Fox is so...amiable. It seems to be based on the fact that Fox is just so very, very laid back. I could see hir saying "Dude, what's happenin?"

Now, we're not peers or equals. One hairless monkey is NOT the equivalent of a Totem that represents the ageless and timeless Incarnation of what it means to be a fox.

But it's very laid-back, in that I don't get shoved around really. I get asked to Do Stuff for Fox, and I do it because, well. I promised I would, and things have reasons even if I don't know what that reason is immediately.

In return, I get to see the Spirit World through Fox's eyes, and get protected from being lunched on by malicious spirits, as they have lots of reasons to want to not be Totem Chow.

There's also an element of pure Wonder in it, if you grok me. A magic in the pure connection I've built between myself and the Totem and some other spirits who work with me as Helpers. Its very hard to describe the feeling of A Good Spiritual Work Done Right. It certainly beats any drug ever.

I'm not disconnected from my Tribe, of which most of the people who actually see this comment are likely a part. I'm amplified for them; as if I stand in both worlds at once keeping a weather eye on things. Nor am I disconnected from my relationships, as I'm sure I'd hear very quickly if any of my partners was dissatisfied.

I wonder if multiplicity plays a role too; even if I were -totally- sideways and not able to 'deal' with a day job, there are plenty of others who can and will, so even if I'm just out of it, life goes on.

One datapoint: The degree of demanding behavior by deity seems to be cultural. I've seen a lot more "God-slave" in some pagan faiths then others - it -looks- like the harsher the baseline culture a faith is spawned in, the more demanding and absolute the pantheon is. I could very well be wrong totally, but it's a feeling...
14th-Nov-2007 01:13 pm (UTC)
In tribes the Shaman dealt with the spirit world on behalf of the tribe. They were the spiritual docotrs of the time. Like everything else there are various degrees of how that is done. I know some modern shamans who work and some who do not. Basically now days it is a way of life and not a job. *shrugs* The old ways no longer work so it has evolved. I work in a shamanistic nature and I find more of a connection with folks on levels that suprise me. I am by nature a hermit so it some times conflicts that way. Tribal ways are gone because we have no tribes. I think culture has more to do with it than anything else.

Advertisement

Customize
This page was loaded Dec 27th 2009, 11:13 pm GMT.