I have long felt that shamans have been seen as and treated like rock stars in our society. I have long felt that this is uncool. We'll grow out of it soon enough I hope. A shaman can be a charlatan, a sorcerer or a healer. Usually a combination of the three. Music, poetry and art are part of the show of course...

Now add shamanism to a society (ours) which is all celebrity obsessed, youth obsessed--the sort of place where people think that jim morrison was a shaman!

it's never good to overfeed an ego. Never good to expect someone else to have the power to enlighten you, fix everything or whatever.

"A shaman can be a charlatan, a sorcerer or a healer"

I would not call a charlatan a shaman. Shamans are the real deal. Pretend shamans are not actaully shamans.

Maybe you mean to say that a shaman can be a trickster?

Shaman is a word thrown around here that does not actually belong.

It is a term that originates in a totally different area of the planet, for a totally different practice.

A more accurate term, despite still applied, would be sorcerer.

People forget Aya was a tool of war, linked often with battle, death and even murder. There seem to exist more techniques for harming using aya, than for healing, including many forms of spiritual attacks.

So called shamans were often killed themselves when they were seen as causing harm or failing to heal.

The 'shaman' worship in the so called scene is the worst thing that could ever happen to aya. It is a lame catch phrase bearing little relation to reality and having more to do with reaching the target audience of new agers and hippies for capitalistic enterprise than anything else. The word is about making money.

I'd make the suggestion that ANYONE calling themselves a shaman is someone to avoid for about a half dozen reasons.

And frankly the sorcery practices that are being called Shamanic are things that many people can do without any guides or apprenticeship. It is kind of stupid to put your trust, money and life with some person because they call themselves a Shaman and claim to be able to do something for you. It is just capitalism, why not commune with the vine yourself and learn to listen to the plant spirits?

Then again having been with a shaman gives you some sort of new age street cred, bragging rights, and that is all it really amounts to.

This is my opinion, no more, no less.

"A more accurate term, despite still applied, would be sorcerer."

That would be just as innaccurate anthropologically. Semantics..what can you do?

Actually I got that term (sorcerer) from an Andean anthropologist who objected to the use of the term Shaman in a college class about shamanism and indigenous religion.

His belief (he was not alone) was that the best translation into English, for what they were/did was sorcerer/ry.

Wait..are you taking about using the term "sorcery" to replace the use of the term "brujo" as it has been used in latin america to describe negative magical practices? Or are you using it to describe the whole spectrum of this sort of magic, in a sort of neutral way?

If you are using to describe both people who are genuine and serve others and heal, as well as the opposite then I would agree *somewhat*..I thought you were saying that it was a good term to replace "brujo" in which case I completely disagree..

here is the etymology of the term..

"Now the word 'sorcery,' which in modern usage is synonymous with 'magic,' has a different history than might be expected. The word itself is not derived from the word for 'magic.' It is derived from the Old French word 'sorcerie,' which itself derived from 'sorcier,' or sorcerer. So sorcery itself never derived from some notion of magic, but rather from the word denoting the person who used it.

But, the word 'sorcerer' had its own interesting meanings. It derived from the Latin word 'sortiarus' which literally meant 'one who influences fate or fortune.' Also, an interesting tidbit is that the word 'sorceress' is actually older than 'sorcerer'--the first originating around 1384, the second beginning around 1526. This is probably in keeping with old Roman mythology about mythical female figures, such as the Fates, who did 'influence fate or fortune.'"

I dont want to get too deep into this and detract from the actual topic..I just spent a lot of time in college studying anthropology completely jaded by how all these "professional" anthropologist had slandered the term "wtchcraft"..at one point these people were all "witchdoctors" etc..the church bastardized the term enough already to the point where in many amerindian communities people who practice negative magic are "witches"..it's just a complete bastardization of the term, and it's offence to a whole ethnic culture that really should be celebrated..

The term "sorcery" might be useful to describe the whole specturm of the practice in south america and elsewhere because I guess it is about influencing ones fate..for better or worse..I dont think it's a perfectly correct historical use of the term but it can work and everything evolves...but it is a strech because we are talking about people who do go on a "shamanic journey"..not simply people who influence ones fate. Much of what we today call "shamanism" is very much like the norse practice of "seidr"..to seidth literally means "to boil"..both the boiling of brews and the boiling of the mind that takes place once ingested and other practices like chanting are undertaken. It is essnetially ALL about entering altered states and going on a journey..to the point where a distinction is made between "seid" magic which happens in altered states, and spae craft-which is more simple divination(runes, tarrot etc)..

The term "sorceror" makes no distinction..and I see no reason to mix that term up with groups of people who are entering altered states and going on journies that seem very very similar to the classic shamanic journies of shamans in tribes like the Koryaks of russia and other siberian tribes etc.

Seidr magic is actaully thought to be inspired by the sami "noida"(shaman basically) practices of Scandanavia..who themselves have a culture that is not hard to relate directly to the siberian shamans..Norse seid "haegtessas" or witches etc were actaully thought to have consulted the same noida's for the real heavy magic.

In this way the term "shaman" makes FAR more sense to apply to what many of these people do than the term "sorceror." Shamans use psychedelic mushrooms and make a journy into an altered state..this is the actaul practice of the people who culturally own the term.

It def should not be a term only applied to "brujos" though otherwise we just end up bastardizing another culturally specific term.

I dont really get why an anthropologist would suggest that term in that context. "Shaman" makes way more sense, thought still it is not totally culturally relevant and has been bastardized enough itself by pop culture.

There really is no reason to use that term(sorceror) here.

I don't agree.

Sorcerer makes more sense to me.

There is also the idea of acting directly and acting indirectly that can factor into the meanings. Shamans tend to have no power, they ask spirits to help them do things, so do sorcerers, but sorcerers also act directly and have power.

As for the idea of healers, whatever word you use this aya healer thing is largely an invention of the modern era due to tourism. Aya was used to "see" and this was used for good and bad (in context) classically you would hire one of these people to harm your enemies, to curse or kill them even, this use is widespread throughout the literature and yet is almost toally absent from today. The idea of these shamans or sorcerers as healers is highly questionable, healing was a role they took on, but it was a relatively minor one. One might as well call them harmers, but that too would be inaccurate.

A person dying in the care of one of these so called "shamans" is not unheard of in the classic literature, actually it is not uncommon. The tainted terms healer and shaman are interpreted far too strictly in a positive light, Brujo is the opposite, far too negative. The truth is perhaps right in the middle and this event, this death of the topic of the thread is being seen in contrast with the far too positive view, which is quite naive, this death is not out of the ordinary in a historical sense, though ayahuasca is generally safe the so called Shamans are not, they were feared for a reason, they are dangerous.

Those interested in the shamanism/sorcery/witchcraft debate may want to read In Darkness and Secrecy: The Anthropology of Assault Sorcery and Witchcraft in Amazonia, edited by Neil Whitehead and Robin Wright.

http://www.dukeupress.ed...oduct.php?productid=8924

^yeah I am familiar with his work..it is interesting..

Though again there is no "witchcraft" taking place in the amazon..ahh this gets tiring.

I wrote a paper about this in college..I wish I still had it. I had one class with my fav prof who knew and was a big fan of Wade Davis..it was a religious anth class and the text book we had to use was called "religion, magic and witchcraft" and that thing was the biggest pile of crap ever. My teacher hated it also and so made sure we had a lot of other texts to read..namely stuff by Wade Davis. Serpent and the Rainbow was required reading.

I wrote a paper all about this misuse of these terms..and why the use of the term witchcraft being used all throughout anthropolofy to describe cultures that had NOTHING to do with european seid magic was just rediculous and crappy anthropology. It's all witchdoctor this witchdoctor that.

These people are not witches. This kind of mislabeling needs to stop. If someone studies traditional witchcraft than they should be called a witch..anyone else should be called rightfully what they are.

In reality there are terms for these people in their own languages. This is what they truely are. Anthropology has seeked again and again to just generalize these peoples..and it might even be useful to some degree..but much is also lost when we do so. It does not help the field of anthropology grow(and I would say its not even true anthropology) and it does a great disservice to the cultures you are stealing terms from..

From "shaman" to "witch" to "bruijo" this should all just stop. It is entirely disrespectful to large groups of people who actaully have a rightful claim to such terms.

Neil Whitehead was making a different point when he wrote that book..but the arguement still stands..show me evidence of "witchcraft" in the amazon and I will change my stance.

I made this into it's own topic. Enjoy.

AlbertKLloyd wrote:


Sounds like some majorly preconcieved notions you have there based on some fairly weak generalizations IMO

just one more observation I have made over the years..

Often times people come to the discussion to complain about the use of the term "shaman" when trying to find a general term to agree on in realtion to the phenomenon..and they go on about how in the amazon etc etc they dont only "heal"..they also harm etc..

..and then they complain that people have idealized these people by calling them shamans and that we have idealized the term.

However, these same people idealize the term just as much by assuming for some reason that the same thing does not go on in siberian culutre..you think within the shamanic culture of siberia there is not this same dicotemy between "good" and "evil"?

I find it odd that people dont mention this more.

In traditional european magic there is an old saying..something like "how can you learn to heal if you dont learn to curse?"

I think that sums it up well enough. I think this is a general truth amongst all magical cultures..and I think it is intrinsically woven into the fabric of animistic thought..nature is not observed to be good or evil..it just is..there is a balance and that is what is observed and revered.

First off someone needs to add an "oh my" to the title of this thread.

Shaman is a term for a healer in Siberia IIRC, that has been been taken way out of context. I think the terms the indigenous peoples themselves use and have always used make a lot of sense. "Medicine man" "road man" "curandero" "brujo" "ayahuascero" these are very good descriptions of what these people actually do, without resorting bastardized and westernized terms like sorcerer and shaman.

My $0.02

^brujo might be an okay term as long as it is applied across the board to all of these people thrughout the spectrum of what is perveived as good and evil. The way it is used currently is a reflection of the churches assult on paganism and it is entirley offensive.

I comepletely agree with Jamie. Quite frankly I believe many non-spiritualist people are a way too nit picky and hyper sensitive about the terminology surrounding psychedlics and terms like shaman, entheogen, medicine-man etc as if it's some how offensive to their supposed lack of beliefs...

There is always this never ending struggle to come up with more and more PC terms and I think it's a little rediculous personally.

Psychedelics have been used for spiritual purposes since the dawn of mankind hence the various luingistic phrasing that has developed around it's use.

Also, according to Albert, only people from south america can be real shaman? Why is that? Is there some kind of cringo DNA that inhibits the ability to be a proper shaman?

Albert, who are you to say who can and who cannot be shamen??

"Also, according to Albert, only people from south america can be real shaman? Why is that? Is there some kind of cringo DNA that inhibits the ability to be a proper shaman?"

I think what he was saying is that the term is best applied to the siberian "shamans" as it is a term that is specific to that culture..and so in that way it really is most relevant to them.

We have this term today used more widely and in a general sense due to people like Eliade, and Michael Harner..both of whome seemed to idealize the whole thing and perpetuate an air of misunderstanding IMO that has plagued the anthropology world ever since.

..we certainly could have done without the whole "core shamanism" thing and the endless weekend workshops that have followed in it's wake. As if you can pay for a weekend workshop and come home a shaman!

aw man, but i got my toiletries packed, and enough clothes for the weekend..
your telling me i wont be a shaman on monday??!?!?!?

It is quite demonstrable with historical evidence, that is not actually in debate.


I am rather spiritual and still take issue with those terms, it has nothing to do with being PC.



Define spiritual purposes here, because they have been used for MANY things. One might say they have been used for ANTI-spiritual purposes just as often.


I never wrote nor implied that.
Actually if you read what I wrote (you clearly didn't) I mentioned that the South American traditions are not particularly Shamanic, hence the term is misleading. However if we do apply the term Shaman you can also read that I wrote the following:

Yeah, rather than say that only people from SA can do it, I said that pretty much ANYONE can. If you know the right techniques or the right spirits to invoke results are easy.

Nobody, given that I did not write or say that.

May I suggest reading what I write before attempting to address it?

Jamie and I agree about a lot of the content of this topic, believe it or not. An example of this is the use of the terms; witchcraft and brujo. He is totally accurate in my opinion about that, and I would add that for me the label shaman is as fitting to the South American traditions as the term Witchcraft is. We may disagree about that, but still we are mostly in agreement. The problem with the term witchcraft is far beyond being PC, that really has nothing at all to do with the topic.



Agreed, this was the point of the Andean anthropologist, he said that sorcerer was closer as a translation than Shaman was. It is still a word alien to those cultures, but I feel that it is more accurate than any other label I can think of, though it lacks perfect aptitude.

The Serpent and The Rainbow should be required reading for this thread!



Cool, my only concern is this:


For me this is a major part of both this discussion and the other one. That people are taken aback by the idea of the death, but they should not be, because Shaman has a connotation that is far too positive in contrast with the more neutral tradition peoples view becomes tainted as it were by the labels. The idea that someone died in the care of a traditional style south American ayahuascero should not be so shocking or surprising. It does stand in contrast to the way we view these practices today, but it is kind of ordinary in a historical and traditional sense. I agree that the hiding of the body and the lying are things that people should be shocked at, but the death is not, in my opinion. Nor should people attribute the death to the ayahyuasca without autopsy suggesting it, again in my opinion, there is lots of evidence that Aya is generally safe and that Andean shamanism (if we call it that) is potentially dangerous, for many reasons.

I also agree with previous comments in the other thread about the exploitation of these traditions in a capitalistic manner, I too feel that this is a potential source of problems.



Yes (to a degree but not absolutely) in terms of practice of "attacks", however in terms of social roles of those whom we label I think that a more significant dichotomy emerges between the Andean practices and Siberian/Asian practices. I would say that the Andean practices are closer to Voodoo in many ways than they are to Siberian shamanism for example. The serpent and the rainbow comes to mind again, and those who have studied will note the rainbow serpent is found in the Andean traditions.


AMEN!

Something Donald brought up reminds me that in many cultures one cannot choose to be a Shaman, but is called/chosen.
It is an interesting topic unto itself

It is in contrast to sorcery type practices to some degree, though it is said that some sorcerers are born such (Harry Potter lol), however in general "sorcery" is something accessible (in theory) to pretty much anyone who wants to do it.