OccultForum.org

Original post: joshua007

I've been pondering about this for quite some time. In The Netherlands we have the phrases "sjamaan" and "sjamanist". Those two phrases I'll roughly translate into "shaman" and "shamanist".

Often I see these phrases being used randomly as if they have one and the same meaning. However after having done a fair amount of research into the subject I see a very clear difference. Yet I want to share it and see if others see it the same way or not at all.

When following the path of a Shaman all the way through history I notice that it is far different then innitiatory paths that we, in the West, are accustomed too. For excample look at the many afro- caribean cultures which evolved from the ancient shaman tribes. Within the Winti culture all shamanistic attributes and aspects are incorporated within their life style. This does not make one a shaman automatically untill the individual shows more then average interest to become one. Then he/she will be taught by the tribe shaman, more like being prepared for the moment that the individual will take upon a journey. During the journey the individual will go through many hardships and come back reborn.

Shamanists on the other hand are not shamans. They are people from the western world that mix and match. People who think they are shamans because they find it interesting but are far from it. Shamanists are those pagan streams which people choose to follow. They attempt using shamanistic aspects in their lifes.

The difference is that you can not choose to be a full fledged shaman since it is part of a culture and life style in which you should've been brought up in. It is not a simple path you can choose to follow and learn all about it and then claim to have become a shaman.

Personally...I find the way shamanism is being doing by a lot of people disgusting. Trying to mix and match cultural incompetable ways of life and thought. It is like trying to convert Eastern systems to Western standards which won't work. Those who will say that Reiki does lack the understanding of the original way it was and how it got bastardized.

Original post: doh

Personally, I think you are on the right track and agree. It's much along the same lines as what has happened to the definition and meaning of Karma and Dharma once it gets away from the areas it was founded in. Shamans generally are chosen to take the path that they take and do so for their entire lives. Those that are shamanistic, in my opinion, generally only use aspects of nature and shamanism as it relates to how they practice and what they believe and don't generally do the things that have been passed down through generations of Shamans. One reason may be because they are Shamans, so Shamans don't want to share all of their secrets. Can't say I blame them, honestly.

Original post: Demetrios

A Finnish scholar Pentikäinen, who has some authority to speak on the subject, having done numerous field trips to Siberia with the blessing of local surviving shamans (in fact, told by the shamans when and where to visit them again, as Pentikäinen tells himself), makes a further but no less important distinction. Even the word shaman, which refers to and individual who has caught the shaman disease or has been born with it, received the necessary initiations and surrendered itself to the purpose of serving its people, can be misleading, because it is just a name for a social role. No individual in himself or herself is a "shaman" (a "shaman" rather looses its "individuality" during its initiations), but the matter at heart is shamanhood, the relationship between the servant and the people it is in service of.

Original post: jack hectic

i personally agree a bit with what you say, however i disagree with the mix and match thingy. mixing beliefs is what causes evolution of future cultures, but the problem runs into when people call it the same name as those who are true to the beliefs. this i do disagree with.

it would be the same as a catholic christian who believes in the trinity, obeys the sacraments, confesses regularly, and attends mass, and someone who calls themself a catholic christian and believes that jesus was half-alien, that the trinity is some council of lovecraftian beings, and that mass, sacraments, and confession are ways of honoring and showing alliegiance the great old ones.

one is truly a catholic christian. the other should come up with a name for himself that should not be confused with the former.

all religions, no matter how screwed up, are possible. but one should at least show courtesy to the other religions by not giving them a bad name or confusing people outside of it...

EDIT: thats what i believe anyway...

Original post: Aunt Clair

I think Shamanistic practices are universal and often taught by spirit teachers as well as live masters of one particular culture . I know that I have been a shamyn in other lives and in this one I have been taught to recall some practices which I use to heal and exorcise . I feel that it is difficult to be homogenous in pathworking . I feel we are all one in the Universal Mind and that eclectic braiding is a prevasive norm .

Some anthropologists and religion scholars define a shaman as an intermediary between the natural and spiritual world, who travels between worlds in a state of trance. Once in the spirit world, the shaman would commune with the spirits for assistance in healing, hunting or weather management.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamanism

Original post: Ninlil

I hope no one holds this against me, because I don't mean to trivialize this distinction, but I must confess that the first thing that came to mind when I read the title of this thread was "Trekkies vs Trekkers"

Original post: kyrus

trekkies vs trekkers, now that's funny.

Original post: alacardkane

I feel the truth between the two is really that shamans, they honestly feel it in them, they are called to it, it is them. shamanists, are just interested passerbys.

I feel this way because of my own life, i started my awakened life as a wiccan, but it felt wrong, and i searched high and low for what i was meant to be, from satanism to high magic to the many religions of the far east. but my path, always fell to the most natural, but until the last few months, i never felt right with things. but i stopped fighting what was inside, in my soul. i don't like using the term shaman to describe myself, because then I'm categorized. but i cant be categorized, because there is so much responsibility that i have now.

i also believe that shaman is anachronistic, most shamanists believe it falls to the old ways, sticking to the past as well as anyone that uses the term. there have been shaman since the beginning of time. those that connect with the world, that understand the ways of nature, of the spirits and even then the spirit of the earth, the sun, the stars and the moon. but deeper yet, there is a sense of responsibility to the world, there are things that must be done, and rules that must be abided by.

I guess what im trying to say is, its a calling deep, pure and simple, if you are a "shaman" that is what you are, you are born with it, called to find it, and all together you can't fight it.

EDIT: also, the part about anachronism, is due to the fact that shaman evolve and adapt, as is apparent in studying the past. there are new young spirits now that have things to say as well, so we must listen. the lakota believed that their tools had spirits, especially the sacred pipe. i know personally that my computer has a spirit, one of communication and knowledge in a similar manner to the pipe and smoke of the past.

my computer has a name, it is Victoria, through her peace I greet old friends, and make new relationships. over her I debate and we tell stories, as well as gain new tales from others.

Original post: The Cove

From online etymology dictionary:

"1698, "priest of the Ural-Altaic peoples," probably via Ger. Schamane, from Rus. shaman, from Tungus shaman, which is perhaps from Chinese sha men "Buddhist monk," from Prakrit samaya-, from Skt. sramana-s "Buddhist ascetic.""


Sounds like a put down word originally - they did not know what to label the magiciian's so used an opproximation. Same reason the american indians are called indians.

There is an ancient irony here. But I think it lends itself to the proper answering of the difference between shaman and shamanist.

On a semi side note I recall a rather drunken conversation I had with a traditionaly trained shaman:

"I am a shaman." I said.

"You are not." He said.

"I am." I reply.

"Why?" He asks.

"Because I say so." I reply.

"That is not good enough." He says in consternation.

"I didn't say I was a very good one." I say, and we both burst out laughing and continue are evening of drink and storytelling.

Original post: Jenfucius

jack hectic;248980 wrote:.... but one should at least show courtesy to the other religions by not giving them a bad name or confusing people outside of it...

I totally agree with that. Unfortunately these days you have alot of fake shamans running around with fabricated credentials out only to make cash from the uninformed.

Original post: lasersguru

Your post rocks!

Original post: Aunt Clair

There are also valid shamynistic practices that never charge a fee . I have magical peers that heal and exorcise shamynically and do this in service without charge .

Original post: Vindictus

lemme see if I have this straight... A Shaman is a person who has been trained and accepted by another shaman. A Shamanist is anyone who uses magick inspired or influenced by shamanic practices. Am I right?

Original post: Kazahel

Yeah we cant all be shamans.

Original post: Vindictus

Such a pity... Pity, pity, pity.

Original post: Jenfucius

[QUOTE=Vindictus;370522]lemme see if I have this straight... A Shaman is a person who has been trained and accepted by another shaman. ....[/QUOTE]
Its a little more than that.
With many traditional cultures* there needs to be a degree acceptence by his community.
He would not be consider a shaman if there is no validation from his community (yes I know it sounds almost contardictory). For example many New Age plastic shaman types who claim to follow traditional practices are not consider shamans in those ethnic communities that they claim they represent. Especially if they feel his claims are bogus or his practices are not traditional authentic etc.

Second point. A person who becomes a shaman among many (but not all traditional cultures) traditional cultures its usually after a major illness (being close to death) or have been chosen by spirits to do so or have suffer major mental illness etc.
In many traditional cultures most people who becomes shamans are reluctant to do so but are more or less forced to. It is not by choice they become a shaman essentially.
For further reading I would recomend academic resources.

(*When I say Traditional Cultures I mean Tribal indigenous cultures.)

Original post: Vindictus

Point.
But what is so wrong about borrowing a method or two from shamanic practices? Pretty much every major magickal group is a polygot of other beliefs... I bet once the golden dawn was the equavalent of our newagers. Its not like the basic ideas are any less ridiculous then one another...

Original post: Jenfucius

[QUOTE=Vindictus;370742]Point.
But what is so wrong about borrowing a method or two from shamanic practices? Pretty much every major magickal group is a polygot of other beliefs... I bet once the golden dawn was the equavalent of our newagers. Its not like the basic ideas are any less ridiculous then one another...[/QUOTE]
As long as credit is given where credit is due and one isnt posing as something they are not. Absolutely Nothing! Give your self a blast!

Original post: Uni_Verse

The Shaman is more than a sick man or a man that has gone mad.
For while the Shaman is sick, is mad... the Shaman has healed this sickness, this madness.
The Shaman is cured ; to cure is the cure.

To be Shaman.

Original post: Venefica

I have never heard the word Shamanistcan somone tell me what that is? Sorry for the stupid question.

Original post: Vindictus

Ok, a shamanist is someone who practices techniques based more or less off shamanic ones, but doesnt acknowledge that they are not, in fact, genuine shamanic techniques.

Original post: Uni_Verse

The joy, The ecstasy, of the dance;
Swirling, dervish, Shivic trance
Coming up: a spring romance
Take You unto the Holy Yew!
Reject thought, transcend to Other
You are not You; You are Brother
You are cured, You are smothered
Love devised as Will uncovered
Love her!
Burning reisonous woods!
In a desert of You!
You discover : Blue!
She, laying naked, and True!
Love her! Love her! (As You)

Original post: Amur

The shamanic disease is a systematical break-down process where ones mind and emotional aspects are systematically destroyed piece by piece, which practically makes it very terrible. Depending a bit how long this initiative disease takes place, gives supposedly the future shaman his/her power (if he/her survives it as many do not and kill themselves or just dies from it). When the mind and emotional aspect is broken down the shaman gets to see the whole process from a very close distance which means that the shaman gets alot of information about different diseases / spirits / energy structures / workings of the body&mind etc. etc. which is then used to heal the world later on, but the most important thing for a shaman after the initiatory process is to of course heal him/herself as one can't really heal another that well before one has healed oneself.

The shamanic path is a bit like a kundalini path although it's filled with problems and troubles which makes it a much more intensive path than that of kundalini, it's more like kundalini path intensified by alot of suffering to an extent that can make one pretty mad...

Supposedly 1/3rd of the initiatives die in their shamanic disease, though I'm not very sure about the number...

Original post: Vindictus

Er... okay... Just offhand, why the random lecture on the shaman disease?

Original post: Amur

[QUOTE=Vindictus;374383]Er... okay... Just offhand, why the random lecture on the shaman disease?[/QUOTE]

No idea, good point